NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberal Thinking

Sadly, we don't know who wrote this, but we are delighted to share it with
those of you who have requested it:

I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought.
I understand classical liberalism.

What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help
me.

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.

* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.

* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.

* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.

* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.

* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.


Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced
of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then.

If that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what
does.

Author Unknown

We hope you've enjoyed todays class, please come again.

That about sums it up. Pretty accurate I would say.

That about sums it up. Pretty accurate I would say.


Ya apparently, it did serve to remind me that I'm not a liberal in the modern sense. I'm not even one in the classical sense, although I do recognize safety and environmental concerns as legitimate terrain of government. But even then, not near as much for either as the typical liberal - i guess i believe in... practical!?! solutions to the worlds problems, of which neither side seem to put up. Conservatives say clearcut it all to nonexistence and abandon all safety standards. Liberals on the other hand seem to think that we need to put up a protective bubble around the forests and remote areas of the world and go into excessive regulation concerning safety to the point where businesses are bound to miss out on some point and get sued. I think the FDA gets carried away, but I figure it should be law for companies to say everything they know or suspect is in their products that could potentially do someone harm.

Liberals believe in big government 'taking care of all our problems.'
Conservatives believe in big brother government 'making sure we don't step out of line' and big business getting free reign over anything they can buy (and then some) regardless of the consequences to public health or humanity in general.
What happened to the idea of moderation?!?

yeah here's another good joke:

HOW TO BECOME A REPUBLICAN (http://rawilson.com/jokes.shtml)

1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year prosperity prior to W's administration was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, but that today's growing deficit and rising gas prices are all Clinton's fault.

2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.

3) You have to be against government programs, except Social Security checks on time.

4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate your personal sexual and reproductive decisions.

5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.

6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.

7) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and former President Clinton.

8) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.

9) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents or Republican men have ever been unfaithful to their wives.

10) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans.

11) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

12) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.

13) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.

14) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading and right on the mark.

15) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.

16) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own art and the poor don't need any.

17) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.

18) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that bastard Clinton should have been impeached.

19) You have to believe that George W. Bush really won the last election.

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
I do believe that funding could help slow the spread of AIDS.
* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
In short, I support protecting sentient human beings and killing senseless collections of cells.
* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.
People were having sex long before reading, so it must be pretty simple.
* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.
Doctors that recklessly endanger people's lives are overpaid.
* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.
Guns in the hands of law-abiders have killed so many more people than nuclear weapons.
* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.
Yep. That's a true one.
* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.
Businesses = People trying to take money from me.
Government = People trying to make me like them.
* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
Well if all you get from doing that something is self-esteem, then yes, self-esteem is more important than the action.
* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
There was no art that patrons didn't like before federal funding. Some people think that art that people wouldn't hang on a wall in their house is important too.
* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
No we don't. Dubya definitely started this "war."
* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
Yes, I think a channel funded by average people will provide some programming of a different nature than ones funded by corporations. Not necessarily better, but different, and with 500+ channels anything different is worthwhile.
* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
Yep. Some parts of the consitution are dumb. Some are important.
* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.
Yeah. I don't see the insult here.
* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
Wait, didn't you say earlier that HIV was a big concern because it's prevention is underfunded? Make up your mind.
* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Real scholars of Marx would say that it just isn't time yet. Different people in charge certainly would've helped, though.

Only one thing stands out here:

Guns in the hands of law-abiders have killed so many more people than nuclear weapons.

:o

I can only imagine how many people criminals have killed!

And the second 'joke' reminds me why it is that I don't want to be a Republican. Why is our nation controlled by such idiots??? Maybe I should vote for Nader... not like I really like him all that much either.

yeah here's another good joke:

HOW TO BECOME A REPUBLICAN (http://rawilson.com/jokes.shtml)

1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year prosperity prior to W's administration was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, but that today's growing deficit and rising gas prices are all Clinton's fault.

First off I wouldnt call it prosperity, second off yes, it takes years for the market to catch up, it doesnt happen over night.

2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.

Well, we should ask John Kerry about this one, he was much more "Privileged" then I am... Oh but that doesnt count does it? It only counts when its a republican right?

3) You have to be against government programs, except Social Security checks on time.

How about instead of you CRYING to the goverment for help, you might get OFF your ass and do something for your self? Oh, wait, your a democrat, sorry.

4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate your personal sexual and reproductive decisions.

Maybe keep YOUR sex out of MY life and we wouldnt have to regulate your sexual and reproductive decisions would we?

5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.

Well we better plug up every ass in the world, because meth gas is one of the worst things for the ozone... Better yet lets all be democratic about it and stick our HEADS up our ass. That would solve the ozone problem AND help us see things from your point of view.

6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.

Umm... Last time I prayed in school I was silent... How do they know who I'm praying to? Oh wait, they must read my mind to see who I'm praying to!

7) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and former President Clinton.

Well now, adultry would be a sin now wouldnt it? And I do hate clinton.

8) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.

Oh yea, because we all know the ONLY reason people wont vote for a black man is because he's black. Put powell up for president and I bet he'd win by a landslide... But he doesnt count does he?

9) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents or Republican men have ever been unfaithful to their wives.

And that makes it OK right? Oh he did it, so I can do it too! And he got away with it, so I should get away with it too!

10) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans.

Concern, no, RIGHT, yes! Last time I checked its still my right

11) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

No, I just dont like it when they make stupid baloon animals out of them.

12) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.

OH MY GOD, where have I seen this one before. just a hint but its a lot more powerful the other way, I wouldnt keep repeating this one if I were you.

13) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.

Correct. Those who chose to have unprotected sex will find out what Darwin meant.

14) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading and right on the mark.

Hey, wait, I agree with this one... Damn it!

15) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.

have? No, have the ability to in one shot? yes. We dont plan for the PAST we plan for the FUTURE. Thats why its a plan, and not a book.

16) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own art and the poor don't need any.

Well now you decide, I havent seen to many bums picking ART out of dumpsters... But maybe if there were more funding...

17) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.

There comes a point when someome who doesnt know what he's talking about should not speak. This is one of those cases. re-growth of a forest is more healthy then stagnant growth... Oh but you must not have been paying attention in that part of life science... It must have been the pot.

18) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that bastard Clinton should have been impeached.

Didnt we already talk about this one? Do you always repeat your self? Anyway, no, I say hang them all by the balls and let there wife do the rest.

19) You have to believe that George W. Bush really won the last election.

There's a saying... Proof is in the puddin. I kinda like it that way.

Ya see, this is why I'm a libertarian - while moderately liberal on social issues and moderately conservative on the economy, I'm not some far left-winger who abandons the concept of personal responsibility nor some neocon who is in cahoots w/big business

I am usually a centrist but I will take a poke.....


* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

The funding is the area of education and condom usage, etc. There is an interesting stat where it shows aid's is higher when education and condoms, etc are not available.


* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.

This one I don't get where the author is going. Liberals are supposed to be seperation of church and state. The conservatives are "blessing" Relgions especially with all the compassion aid crap.


* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

Well that's the paradox. Conservatives are for the possibility of killing the innocent and yet declare themselves prolife.


* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

Not all teachers are idiots. I know many idiot parents.


* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.

Ahh what? Liberals are for internet censorship? Missed that one. School officials doing vaginal exams? Ok where is that coming from?


* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.

Actually mean view the trial lawyers are a necessary evil. How do you know if Doctors are under or overpaid if they don't have to publish their prices? Insurence has a factor as well. Why is it they punish all with rate hikes for the quacks? When was the last time you heard of a quack getting his license pulled? Why is it the AMA has a rather large PAC?


* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

Well that is kind of ignorant on the authors part.


* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.

ohhhhh gas emmissions have nothing to do with environment. The author should visit India with their countless 2 stroke engines. Sidenote: I hear they are getting rid of them now. Big improvement from when I was there.


* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

Oh Ok. Brings out the "ignorant" stamp. *BUMP*


* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.

Ahh what? No they tend to think that businesses have to be watched. *Coughs enron, PG&E, ClearChannel, Worldcom, Global....*

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

Actually I find many that don't. Crap left in the camp sites. A hunter that shoots a mountain lion with a bow, does not chase it, does not report it, and lion attacks a kid out of starvation. (the last one was an extreame example....)


* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

Hmmm Ignorant.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

Ignorant.


* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.

Ah what?

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Quality is a matter of definition. Many channels offer decent programming but include a bazillion commericals. Kids don't need to be seeing the lastest Surger bomb cerial, all suger ice cream, the lastest footwear and clothing.....


* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

Well its probably because the NRA thinks military grade assault rifles are good for everybody to have.....

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.

They are. Care to guess how much an atm transaction costs the bank?


* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

Wow I guess the evil lib historians I had didn't read the memo about not talking about the later three.


* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

No the fringe section does. Racial set-asides? Not sure I have heard of that.....


* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

Anti-smoking nazis are not only liberals.....


* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

-laughs- Ok if I had to choose between Hillary and Rosie. I take Hillary.....


* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.

To suggest all conservatives are racists is wrong but when was the last time you heard a liberal scream "******!"

To suggest that Liberals think they can't make it on their own and that is the focus of the social programs is ignorant.


* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Haven't heard that one. Now the Communist countries have been disappearing. Socialists?


Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced
of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then.

If that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what
does.

Author Unknown

That's ok. There wasn't much of value put in that list so I can see why the author want's to go unknown.....

We hope you've enjoyed todays class, please come again.[/QUOTE]

Only one thing stands out here:



:o

I can only imagine how many people criminals have killed!



Haha, ya, I would have to imagine that accidental deaths by guns aren't really all that high. Considering once they intentionally kill someone, they are no longer law-abiding citizens.


Anyhow, whatever happened to trusting and empowering people to run their own lives? Seems neither side is really all that interested in it, considering liberals want to tax the heck out of you and provide you substandard services in exchange (the idea of having a government job being associated with not really doing any work can be blamed largely on liberal fondness of bureaucracy), while 'compassionate' conservatives want to control your private lives in regards to sexuality, drugs, reproduction, as well as watching over you like a hawk in order to make sure you don't make a slight mistake (whereas they will toss you in jail for a mandatory minimum sentence).


Oh and nuclear weapons have really killed one heck of a lot of people if you think about it. If we had any means to actually measure it, I'm sure a relationship would be found between the abnormally high number of cancer victims and the hundreds of nuclear tests done in the past century. For indictation of nuclear tests and accidents leading to cancer and similar problems, consider the population downwind of Chernobyl as well as the people who have been dying over the last few decades who lived downwind of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally I count ending lives short by a few years and making living less enjoyable to be equal to killing people only to a slightly lesser degree.

I wish to clarify that Bill Clinton committed perjury.

I wish to clarify that Bill Clinton committed perjury.

Actually wasn't he excused from the crime of committing perjury based on the idea that he said 'there IS no sexual relation with that woman', where as the word 'is' belongs in the present tense?

Correct. Those who chose to have unprotected sex will find out what Darwin meant.
Right on! Damn all those babies born to mothers with AIDS. And while we're at it, damn all those girls who get raped by men with AIDS. They're so increadibly stupid, they don't deserve to live.

3) You have to be against government programs, except Social Security checks on time.

How about instead of you CRYING to the goverment for help, you might get OFF your ass and do something for your self? Oh, wait, your a democrat, sorry.


OHHHH so anybody who has gone on social programs is lazy?

My how ignornat of you.


4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate your personal sexual and reproductive decisions.

Maybe keep YOUR sex out of MY life and we wouldnt have to regulate your sexual and reproductive decisions would we?


-confused- I think you just validated the point.


5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.

Well we better plug up every ass in the world, because meth gas is one of the worst things for the ozone... Better yet lets all be democratic about it and stick our HEADS up our ass. That would solve the ozone problem AND help us see things from your point of view.

Oh my yea. Kill all them cows theyare the true causes of global warming. Hey wait I thought the conservatives said it don't exist?


9) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents or Republican men have ever been unfaithful to their wives.

And that makes it OK right? Oh he did it, so I can do it too! And he got away with it, so I should get away with it too!

Ok. I will bite. Do explain how the 50 million was wisely spent?


11) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

No, I just dont like it when they make stupid baloon animals out of them.


OK that was FUNNY! :D


13) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.

Correct. Those who chose to have unprotected sex will find out what Darwin meant.


Oh okay. Then we should end all medical research.


17) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.

There comes a point when someome who doesnt know what he's talking about should not speak. This is one of those cases. re-growth of a forest is more healthy then stagnant growth... Oh but you must not have been paying attention in that part of life science... It must have been the pot.

Ahh but clear cutting is so good for the forrest. Ever read the history of pacific lumber? There were probably the only profitable green company in the US. Well untill that junk bond guy took them over.


Philisophical religous wars are soooo fun. ;)

Right on! Damn all those babies born to mothers with AIDS. They're so increadibly stupid, they don't deserve to live.

That brings up a valid point. Doesn't the general lack of conservative concern about AIDS (lets face it, Bush's AIDS initiative was no more than another corporate handout) go against the general obsession of the conservatives concerning abortion 'killing babies'?


Education and condoms would greatly reduce the spread of AIDS. Corporate handouts? Nope.

Congratulations! You've posted something that I've seen here ay least 5 times now, has been countered numerous times, and still lacks any sense of intellect from the poster. To quote Reginold (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=131059):

You're a fucking moron!

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
It's spread by unsafe sex, but more funding helps combat the problem.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.
Wrong. Liberals advocate the government staying out of the church and the church staying out of the government.

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
Yes, this one is true.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.
What, so now all teachers are idiots?

* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.
Not true, I'm on the internet and not a pervert. I haven't heard about this one, but I assume these people would be female doctors?

* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.
I disagree; doctors are better than lawyers, and less well paid I think.

* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.
Actually, this is true. China is economically dependent on the US and vice-versa. It's not long til they become full-fledged allies. Also, China isn't communist anymore so much as a corporate police state. How many Americans have been killed by Chinese missiles anyway? Very few, compared to the hundreds of thousands who have died of (often self-inflicted) gunshot wounds.

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.
This one's true, and as far as I know science backs up "the liberals" on this one.

* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.
This one's true.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.
Big exaggeration, I think that businesses and governments both create oppression and prosperity in equal measure.

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
Or maybe I believe that both groups care?

* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
I don't see what this has to do with politics.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
Not true.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
Actually, liberals tend to blame the politicians. Republicans like to pretend they're blaming the military so they can accuse them of being "unpatriotic".

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
I don't know.

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
True. I think that the parts the ACLU stands for are more important than the one part the NRA stands for.

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.
Yeah.

* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
I've never even heard of Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem. Wasn't Jefferson a liberal?

* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.
I don't know.

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
No, so we'd better fund anti-AIDS initiatives. Oh crap! Check out your first point.

* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.
I don't even give a shit about this one.

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.
Whoever said that all conservatives are racists?

* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Forms of socialism have worked in many places, especially Scandinavia. Pure socialism cannot work in reality, but then again neither can pure capitalism.

They are. Care to guess how much an atm transaction costs the bank?

I would go along the long list but this one I wanted to point out … I used to do data networking for atm’s and such

Actual each atm does not necessarily cost that much the problem is the transfer fee between networks because of the purchase bandwidth and time of a provider

Essentially for the bank I worked for a transfer fee to a non controlled atm cost roughly 95 percent of the transfer fee.

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
True. I think that the parts the ACLU stands for are more important than the one part the NRA stands for.

Wait...did you just admit that you selectively follow the Constitution?

"Liberal thinking" is a classic oxymoron, rather like "legal brief" and "benevolent dictatorship."

I would go along the long list but this one I wanted to point out … I used to do data networking for atm’s and such

Actual each atm does not necessarily cost that much the problem is the transfer fee between networks because of the purchase bandwidth and time of a provider

Essentially for the bank I worked for a transfer fee to a non controlled atm cost roughly 95 percent of the transfer fee.

Ahhh they outsourced. Still the transaction cost of a transaction is till less then they suggest it is. So speaks a wan engineer who knows a fella that wrote the original program for one of the banks..... ;)

But it is a business and many offer free ATMs.

Besides you can always raise the argument of the ATM cost vs tellers. The banks are still making a killing not having as many humans about.....

"Liberal thinking" is a classic oxymoron, rather like "legal brief" and "benevolent dictatorship."

And "Compassionate Conservatism" ;)

Liberal Thinking

Sadly, we don't know who wrote this, but we are delighted to share it with
those of you who have requested it:

I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought.
I understand classical liberalism.

What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help
me.


Not a Liberal, just a democrat but i'll try. By the way Rush Limbaugh is dating a Liberal so guess you guys can be converted lol

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

That is one fact. Also awareness, lack of education (Repubs fault puts money into military instead lol), and things like that.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.

Name a church that is valid to them?

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

Abortion has limits even Roe vs Wade said so. But yeah I'm against capital punishment. Punishment is the lord's. Can't prove every victim of Capital punishment is guilty...recently some have been proven innocent.

And does a woman have the right to protect herself and control over her body? Yes then her two rights outqiegh the fetuses. Thus she can have one.
Does the woman have the right to have in her body only what she choses? Seeing as she has the right to control her body and the right to carry only what she wants keep then her rights again outwieght fetus.

However there are limits: No fetus's should be rid of in third trimester unless it would kill the woman to bring to term. She waited too long. At third trimester the law says the fetus has the ability to live without the mother barely but possibly.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

When has this happened? Examples...

* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.

Many perverts are on the internet trust me. What school officials do vaginal exams?

* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.

Some trial laywers can be heroes. Selfless? All jobs are done for money so its never selfless per say. But there are things done above and beyond duty.
Doctors are overpaid sometimes. Some doctors like specialists are paid about right but many are not.

* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

When is last time China's nukes killed Americans? So guns have a bigger threat...

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.

But Global warming affected by SUVs is also documented as well as Ozone being teared down in strength. Bush even recently accepted such proof after months of denial.


* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

No, some Gender roles exist. The Father should be the head of the household. Many families are badly run because of this breakdown. Mothers should be like advisors and together make all decisions. If the father makes it by himself he is a bad king.
There are limits to King of the household you go too far in ruling by self you be a bad king. You give up rule to wife you stop being king.
Wives are helpmates its in the bible. That means equal discussion.
Being gay isn't entirely unnatural but it is a choice. Maybe they don't know subconsciously its made but its a choice.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.

Many businesses do create oppression such as in the old days when children worked legally. Governments do make prosperity when run by "good" presidents like Bill Clinton, he raised taxes after all the past cuts those increases made the country wealthy. Reagon believed in this: Reagon cuts taxes then raised them. Bush failed to raise taxes so we aren't doing as good as we couldbe. Average civilian person felt great during Clinton years.

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

Based on hunter, some are bad with environment. Indians were good with environment, they were true conservatists unlike conservativests now adays in repub party.

* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

What you talking aboiut Willis!?(to quote Gary Colemen)

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

Actually that is false, many "liberals" such as Picasso didn't think so. Neither did the Michealanglo guy.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
[quote]
Close, Corrupt politicians use the military to start wars. Since we can't ensure corrupt guys (in some people's opinion's Bush) don't start them cutting military is second choice i guess.
[quote]
* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Well PBS is best for objectivity and fairness. Compared to Fox News or CBS(recently)

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

NRA stand up for one piece. ACLU stands up for a lot more. NOt saying ACLU always right but NRA is too much into guns. Why do they want Semi's?

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.

Aren't ATM fees kinda high in some areas? Taxes are too low at moment. That is why we are in a bigger deficent that isn't gonna be balanced without raising taxes like Clinton balanced it.

* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

No Thomas Jefferson was almost a Democrat , far from a Libera though. But he wasn't a New Republivan like the party is currently exists as. You see it was way back when the Republican party died after having full run of President. Due to poor management they lost and never came back. The New republicans appeared and have since ruled pretending to be them.
Same as Catholic Church never got Apostleship and authority from Peter.

* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

Racial quotas are supposed to be about race lol.

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

Secondhand smoke kills more without a choice. Without sex HIV spreads slower. Certain choice involved...

* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

Hillray is a lady, but is Rosie?

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.

Some conservs are racists... some blacks do need help... racist is when you discriminate against them...

* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Kinda true, the right haven't tried it.

Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced
of logic and a bit sadistic.

Actuualy it looks like you have to care about consequences in long term in vovling health of the world. Protect people who are innocent from crimes and being killed anyway. Care about that Secondhand smoke is less aboyt choice then HIV is. Secondhand smoke is a byproduct unlike HIV. And care more about balancing a budget than Reoublicans.


If that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what
does.

Nope but my list did lol

Oh and yes please try again.

Ahhh they outsourced. Still the transaction cost of a transaction is till less then they suggest it is.

But it is a business and many offer free ATMs.

Besides you can always raise the argument of the ATM cost vs tellers. The banks are still making a killing not having as many humans about.....


Hmmm

Well you figure a 5% profit margin on transfer fee’s sure that appears more then a teller you know human salary … though you have to consider the fact that atm’s only deal with handing out cash from electronic accounts

(so there is a limitation in services) including things like cash checking or in the case of our bank handling more then 200 dollars a transaction. Deposits … transferring of funds between non checking and savings accounts.

Basically right now you wont get rid of the teller so it is not a direct replacement. Until they can provide the same services.

And actually in the case of the bank I used to work for there was a 95 percent just for the bandwidth usage and service providers (you think they are going to run cable all over town lol)

That does not replace damaged equipment

We were actually marginally loosing money off of any more then 8 atms because the actual equipment replace and also paying someone to go out and restock cash in the machines ate up more then the rest of the 5% (Yes you do have to have quality people to restock) plus the fees for upkeep and planning (my services)

They could have used about a 10% increase in fees just to pay for what the machines ACTUALY cost them (over 8 machines … that is where it got expensive)

Ahhh they outsourced. Still the transaction cost of a transaction is till less then they suggest it is. So speaks a wan engineer who knows a fella that wrote the original program for one of the banks..... ;)

But it is a business and many offer free ATMs.

Besides you can always raise the argument of the ATM cost vs tellers. The banks are still making a killing not having as many humans about.....

Even if they are making a killing, so what? They are providing a valuable service. If you dont think the service is worth the transaction cost then dont use an atm from another bank. Or move you account to a bank with more atms.

Personally, I remember a time before ATMs and I am much happier now. I am even happy about private people setting up ATMs and charging the outrageous fees that they do. At least now I have an option to withdraw money in places where I didnt used to.

yeah here's another good joke:

HOW TO BECOME A REPUBLICAN (http://rawilson.com/jokes.shtml)

1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year prosperity prior to W's administration was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, but that today's growing deficit and rising gas prices are all Clinton's fault.

2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.

3) You have to be against government programs, except Social Security checks on time.

4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate your personal sexual and reproductive decisions.

5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.

6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.

7) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and former President Clinton.

8) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.

9) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents or Republican men have ever been unfaithful to their wives.

10) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans.

11) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

12) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.

13) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.

14) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading and right on the mark.

15) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.

16) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own art and the poor don't need any.

17) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.

18) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that bastard Clinton should have been impeached.

19) You have to believe that George W. Bush really won the last election.

I agree with all that.

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

Hmmm...nope. AIDS is most definitely spread by transfer of bodily fluids. Of course, lack of funding means lack of education - which means that less people know how you transmit AIDS and how to protect themselves against it.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the government.

Not sure where this even comes from, since most liberals would say that the government needs to get the hell out of religion (and vice versa).

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand ... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

Well, I support the death penalty in very limited cases and am pro-choice, anti-abortion.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

Actually, I'm worried about this "public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read." - Why does this person still have a job?

* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without telling you have your best interest at heart.

School officials doing vaginal exams? What freaking school does the person who wrote this go to? I've never even heard of such a thing. However, free clinics should be able to do vaginal exams without consulting a parent.

* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

Doctors are generally not paid enough. Some trial lawyers are cool, others are gold-diggers.

* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

Not in the least, although I do think that nuclear weapons in the hands of *anyone* are more of a threat than nuclear weapons that just don't exist.

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

No, but to say that they aren't affected at all by pollution would be silly.

* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

What is funny is that there is no contradiction here at all. If gender roles are artificial, then it would make sense that the natural state is not to have forced gender roles - and thus homosexuality would be perfectly natural. If whoever wrote this was trying to make a contradiction, they failed utterly.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

I think *some* businesses create oppression and *some* governments create oppresion. I think people create prosperity, when the environment is right for it.

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

The hunters that live near where I grew up don't care about nature - unless you call getting drunk, shooting people's pets, and leaving dogs to starve "caring about nature."

* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

Erm...nope.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

Erm...nope.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

I've never heard anyone say that.

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Often it is more like "won't" than "can't". Every had the "500 channels and nothing decent on to watch" problem?

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

I don't think the NRA is bad, I just think that only an idiot would fight against having people prove that they know how to properly use a highly dangerous weapon before it is given to them.

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

I think that taxes are too low if the government is going to continue spending as much as they do. Taxes are just fine if they cut spending to the point that we have somewhat of a surplus. If they cut spending *way* down, then they can cut taxes all they want.

And ATM fees *are* too high damnit! They're up to $2.50 a pop now!

* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

So I know who Harriet Tubman is...who are the other two?

* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

I don't think that standardized tests are racist - I just know that they don't actually prove anything about anyone. As for racial quotas and set-asides, that is nothing more than discrimination against minorities (by saying that they just can't do it on their own).

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

Second-hand smoke *is* dangerous - I am borderline asthmatic probably because of it. And HIV in and of itself has no immediate harmful effects. AIDS causes harmful effects.

* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

I don't know about Hillary Clinton, but Rosie O'Donnel is definintely not a man - she's a lesbian.

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

Some self-proclaimed conservatives *are* racist. But black people can make it just fine, and to help them just because of race would be a disservice at this point.


So, I'm confused. I get labelled as a liberal on this forum all the time. People have even called me a "flaming" liberal. This really doesn't describe me in the least.

I agree with all that.

Really? And here I thought you were somewhat intelligent.

Wait...did you just admit that you selectively follow the Constitution?

No, just that he values some points of the Constitution more than others. The Constitution is not sacred, and it was designed to change over time, so valuing parts of it more that others was assumed in it's making. That's why we have the power to make Amemdments (and strike down old ones, as happened after Prohibition.)

Liberalism: Change for the sake of it!
Conservatism: A good idea remains just that.

Only one thing stands out here:
:o
I can only imagine how many people criminals have killed!

I was fully aware that I had the phrase "law-abiding" in there and stand by my statement. Criminals have killed a lot of people.
A personal gun kept at home is several times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Anyhow, I don't know if accidental shootings outnumber nuclear deaths, but certainly when you consider the law-abiding citizens who use guns (police, soldiers) they've killed way more than nuclear weapons.

Bullshit. You take away people's guns and criminals will boldy bust into your house and kill you. But I guess to you gun-control nazis that is better than a few retarded children shooting themselves.

Bullshit. You take away people's guns and criminals will boldy bust into your house and kill you. But I guess to you gun-control nazis that is better than a few retarded children shooting themselves.

Idiot.

Where will the criminals GET the guns?

That's the problem-most criminals can just walk into a store and nab a gun.

Idiot.

Where will the criminals GET the guns?

That's the problem-most criminals can just walk into a store and nab a gun.
I guess you missed the 100+ pages of the various gun control threads where it's been pointed out time and time and time again that criminals will GET the guns via illegal means.
Ever hear of the black market? It's really not the same thing as the black helicopters.

I guess you missed the 100+ pages of the various gun control threads where it's been pointed out time and time and time again that criminals will GET the guns via illegal means.
Ever hear of the black market? It's really not the same thing as the black helicopters.

I don't know if it is true but he says the 2 prime sources are gun "collectors" selling them and house robberies.

Liberal Thinking

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.


No, by ignorance. One can say a lack of funding deprives people of knowledge perhaps, but then how much funding is the question. And will it actually be effective?


* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.

I think this is supposed to be about the use of seperation of church and state to push atheist concepts into the class room but I don't really understand it.


* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.


In reality Liberals are more scared of killing one innocent person and don't see a valid reason for executions. Abortion rights are based on the concept that women should be able to have the same free-wheeling sex life as men without having to be burnded by the consequences. In effect it is about female equality with men in terms of burden of sexual activity, and the right of self-determination coexisting with self-gratification.

They sort of ignore the idea one should be responsible enough to use contraseptives if one is going to be sexually active.


* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.


Most kids learn about sex in the playground, not the classroom or the home.
And considering parenting skills these days consists of driving a mini-van no wonder we want to devolve this responsiblity to the government. Remember, your children, and their successes are the new "fashion statements" of society!


* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.


I have no idea where this came from, but something tells me it is a buried news story that CNN really didn't want to cover.


* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.


Ha, in reality both sides have pacts. It is just that the trial lawyer PAC is in bed with the democrats. Power is all...all is power.


* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.


Let's be honest, people with guns frighten the hell out of suburban americans. Someone got the idea that by getting rid of guns the world would be a safer place, unfortunatly the reason criminals have guns is not because citizens have guns but cops do.

Taking guns out of people's hands would likely shift the crime rate and make crimes committed with stolen guns rare. Of course, illegally purchased guns trafficed across our border purchased weapons would replace about 80-90 percent of those. Manslaughter using guns would be reduced, and replaced by attempted murder and manslaugher using blunt objects such as cars, base ball bats you get the picture.

People don't commit crimes because they have a gun. They just find it easier to do so. The reasons for crime still exist even after removing guns.


* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.


Who knows really...there are so many unknown factors, but we need to deal with the oil problem even if not caring about global warming.


* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

I am just going to laugh...


* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.


Oh two benign orginizations, if they oppress or create prosperity is dependent on the individuals in power of those orginizations.


* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.


In reality this is part of a larger culture war...


* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.


Our society nutures self esteem by placing it on the sidewalk and jummping up and down on it. Power is all...all is power...power is destroying other people...and it is fun!


* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.

Ah, but without armies, the corrput politicians can't start a war can they. Except for the other guy still has an army.


* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Depends on how your going to measure quality. Hell, half of PBS is made in Britian.


* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

Culture war again...

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.


Ah, the phrasing is other people's tax rates are too low and your ATM fees are too high. There is nothing like feeling the government should do something about social inequities with other people's money because...ah your entitled to spend it...because it is acutally your money...and your money is your money. All money is your money...power is all...all is power...


* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

Culture war again...


* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

Ah but you see Standardized tests are known to be racist, except when we tell kids they are not racist, minorities score on par with the majority. (There was a intresting study about that five or six years ago....why do you think they redesigned the S.A.T?


* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.


This and the rest of this I'm not going to comment on as I find it just babble actually.

I guess you missed the 100+ pages of the various gun control threads where it's been pointed out time and time and time again that criminals will GET the guns via illegal means.
Ever hear of the black market? It's really not the same thing as the black helicopters.


Hmm...and I'm sure that if Kmart didn't sell bullets to the Columbine shooters, they just would have "gotten it off the black market", it's so simple really.

I'm skipping the ones I don't know much about.

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
lack of education, really. Republicans seem to think that aids and pregnancy are best prevented by keeping condoms out of schools.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.
Murr? Liberals tend to like a separation between church and state.

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
I'm for capital punishment, actually. Euthanasia, too.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.
4th grade? 5th-8th grade for me. And it was good timing. And Bush's no child left behind act? It's bull in my eyes. I think I'll start a thread on that.

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
Global warming has many factors, I'm sure. It still doesn't mean we can release all the CO2 we want without consequence.

* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.
I see them both as choice with natural attractions mixed in.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.
Good government creates prosperity, not this one.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
Artists for centuries never could sustain themselves on art alone. Government and private sponsorship have always been a part of it.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
They both suck.

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
Yep.

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
The NRA is bad because it's a racist organization.

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.
ATM money goes to a corporation, taxes go to a community.


* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.
I don't like affirmative action...

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
They're both bad.

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.
I don't like affirmative action...

* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
I didn't know socialism was ever attempted. It's always been communists, which is a forced socialism.

I guess you missed the 100+ pages of the various gun control threads where it's been pointed out time and time and time again that criminals will GET the guns via illegal means.
Ever hear of the black market? It's really not the same thing as the black helicopters.

Will it or will it not make obtaining guns harder for criminals?

Will it or will it not make obtaining guns harder for criminals?
It will not make it any harder for criminals to obtain guns if all guns were banned within this country.

Let's see if we can recall history, and current events...

During prohibition, was alcohol hard to get?.. Nope, infact it was easier to get as more was being imported because it was more lucrative.

During our current "war on drugs" are drugs hard to get? Nope, quite easy. Sold on many street corners in just about every city of sizable population.

Guns are banned here in Australia. Sure, there is still the odd gandland killing in Melbourne, but I have to say I haven't noticed "criminals boldy busting into my house and killing me". From where we are, the whole right to gun ownership thing seems rather stupid ("I'll only feel safe if I have a gun in my house"!)

Hmm...and I'm sure that if Kmart didn't sell bullets to the Columbine shooters, they just would have "gotten it off the black market", it's so simple really.

I would say its about as hard as getting your hands on illegal drugs.

Guns are banned here in Australia. Sure, there is still the odd gandland killing in Melbourne, but I have to say I haven't noticed "criminals boldy busting into my house and killing me". From where we are, the whole right to gun ownership thing seems rather stupid ("I'll only feel safe if I have a gun in my house"!)
There is something that the government puts into the beer down in Australia. I dont know what it is, but it's got to be there. By and large the friendliest people I've ever met around the world were in Australia.. and that includes visiting members of my own family.
Whatever it is, with everyone that cordial to each other, it's a wonder that you have any crime rate at all :D

Bullshit. You take away people's guns and criminals will boldy bust into your house and kill you. But I guess to you gun-control nazis that is better than a few retarded children shooting themselves.

I don't know exactly what you meant by "bullshit." If you mean that my statistic regarding the likelihood of shooting an intruder as compared to a family member, you can find more info here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm). As that page makes clear, gun ownership supporters typically challenge the study, so to get a fair outlook I invite you to find a pro-gun site that analyzes the same study.

If your "bullshit" was rather in reference to my (correctly inferred) stance on gun control in general, then I apologize for the useless post.

I would say its about as hard as getting your hands on illegal drugs.

what illegal drugs? Alcohol (if you're under 21)? Marijuana? Cocaine? Heroin?

You make it sound quite easy to obtain a gun illegally. Unless you're with a gang, I think you'd have a hard time. I know where to get weed. I have no clue where to get a gun.

what illegal drugs? Alcohol (if you're under 21)? Marijuana? Cocaine? Heroin?

You make it sound quite easy to obtain a gun illegally. Unless you're with a gang, I think you'd have a hard time. I know where to get weed. I have no clue where to get a gun.
Just how difficult is it currently to get marijuana, crack, heroin, meth, or any other illegal drug?
How much more difficult do you think it is to smuggle guns than it is to smuggle drugs?
Do you really believe that those same people who are willing to smuggle drugs into this country, would be unwilling to smuggle as many guns as there would be a market for?

If a criminal wishes to get a gun, he would have no problem doing so.

I don't know exactly what you meant by "bullshit." If you mean that my statistic regarding the likelihood of shooting an intruder as compared to a family member, you can find more info here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm). As that page makes clear, gun ownership supporters typically challenge the study, so to get a fair outlook I invite you to find a pro-gun site that analyzes the same study.

If your "bullshit" was rather in reference to my (correctly inferred) stance on gun control in general, then I apologize for the useless post.

NOTE: While I have gone through Kellerman's original research(well a summary of it) I am disinclined to go through this new one(I think he just reworked the numbers anyway instead of doing a whole new survey). So if I state something here that is inconsistant with his methodology, point it out and I will correct myself. Perhaps I will read through this new one tomorrow.

1) In his original study(which I believed caused him to lose his CDC funding) Kellerman originally determined that guns put a person at a 43-1 times more risk. I hope you can grasp where Dr. Kellerman is coming from based upon this.

2) just by skimming this article, you see that renting vs owning your residence puts you at 4.4 times higher risk of being murdered while a gun in the house is 2.7 times. Illicit drug use is 5.7 higher.

3) for self defense purposes, it is VERY VERY rare that a shot is even(something like 8% of cases). In less than 1% of the cases is anyone KILLED(killed is all Kellerman looked at)

4) In the US, guns are the favorite method of killing. Just as they are the favorite method of suicide. It doesnt mean that the killing or the suicide would not have happened without the gun. So when you look at households with a homicide(like Kellerman did) you are going to find more guns present.

5) He didnt determine whether the gun used in the killing was the same gun owned in the household. E.G. if you own a gun(which is in your bedroom) and someone walks in and shoots you in the livingroom, Kellerman determines that your gun(the one still in the bedroom) has increased your risk of getting shot.


I just found a good critique of the Kellerman study that you posted so I will link you to that instead of continuing.

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Just how difficult is it currently to get marijuana, crack, heroin, meth, or any other illegal drug?
How much more difficult do you think it is to smuggle guns than it is to smuggle drugs?
Do you really believe that those same people who are willing to smuggle drugs into this country, would be unwilling to smuggle as many guns as there would be a market for?

If a criminal wishes to get a gun, he would have no problem doing so.


Adding to your post, the penalties for gun running are relatively low when compared to having large amounts of illegal drugs.

You can theorise all you like, the fact is even if people smuggle guns in up goes the price, down goes the number of buyers. When I visited Melbourne complete strangers walked up to me in the street and tried to sell me heroine, not once did anyone at any time offer to sell me a gun. The comparison between drugs and guns is false. To further prove the point, may I ask if banning guns is ineffective because banning drugs is ineffective, should all drugs be made legal?

Just how difficult is it currently to get marijuana, crack, heroin, meth, or any other illegal drug?
How much more difficult do you think it is to smuggle guns than it is to smuggle drugs?
Do you really believe that those same people who are willing to smuggle drugs into this country, would be unwilling to smuggle as many guns as there would be a market for?

If a criminal wishes to get a gun, he would have no problem doing so.

Well, you go out and find some heroin. Tell me how easy it is. Agreed though, the Drug War is largely a joke.

Anyway, I think you're oversimplifying by saying "criminals" can get guns easily. What about 13 year old teens who want to kill their classmates? What about the white-collar worker who wants to kill his boss and coworkers?

How about this: Why do so many robbers and muggers fake like they have a gun in their pocket, instead of just "getting it off the black market"?

Maybe it isn't THAT easy for the average joe to get a gun illegally.

You can theorise all you like, the fact is even if people smuggle guns in up goes the price, down goes the number of buyers. When I visited Melbourne complete strangers walked up to me in the street and tried to sell me heroine, not once did anyone at any time offer to sell me a gun. The comparison between drugs and guns is false. To further prove the point, may I ask if banning guns is ineffective because banning drugs is ineffective, should all drugs be made legal?


Good point. Libertarians would be all for allowing guns and drugs, but conventional conservatives would hesitate at "immoral" drugs. It is a good parallel. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the decriminalization of non-dangerous drugs like marijuana.

You can theorise all you like, the fact is even if people smuggle guns in up goes the price, down goes the number of buyers.
Im not sure this is entirely true. Drugs are not all that expensive to get. And with any "free market" the demand vs. supply determines the price.

When I visited Melbourne complete strangers walked up to me in the street and tried to sell me heroine, not once did anyone at any time offer to sell me a gun.
This has more to do with the difference in nature between guns and drugs. It might also have to do with the difference between cultural feelings between drugs and guns. However, did you ask any of those people who offered to sell you drugs if they could provide you a gun? If you had, and they had answered yes or no, then you could have used that "statistical" evidence for your argument.

The comparison between drugs and guns is false. To further prove the point, may I ask if banning guns is ineffective because banning drugs is ineffective, should all drugs be made legal?
No, making drugs legal isnt the right thing to do. I have always believed that if you dry up the market, the drugs will go away. But it's not exactly practical to do such.
The comparison between drugs and guns is not false. It's used to make a point. That point is, taking the ineffectiveness of banning drugs, do you have any reason, any evidence, any rational reason to believe that banning guns would have any more affect than the ban on drugs?

No, making drugs legal isnt the right thing to do. I have always believed that if you dry up the market, the drugs will go away. But it's not exactly practical to do such.
The comparison between drugs and guns is not false. It's used to make a point. That point is, taking the ineffectiveness of banning drugs, do you have any reason, any evidence, any rational reason to believe that banning guns would have any more affect than the ban on drugs?
So just to be clear, a gun ban wont work because drugs bans dont work, and even though drug bans are utterly ineffective you still want to waste police resources, court resources and lock up tax paying citizens....why if it doesnt work, and why dont the reasons for doing it even though it does not work apply to guns if they are such a good comparison.

You can theorise all you like, the fact is even if people smuggle guns in up goes the price, down goes the number of buyers. When I visited Melbourne complete strangers walked up to me in the street and tried to sell me heroine, not once did anyone at any time offer to sell me a gun. The comparison between drugs and guns is false. To further prove the point, may I ask if banning guns is ineffective because banning drugs is ineffective, should all drugs be made legal?


1) yes I am for the legalization of drugs even though I dont use drugs(other than alcohol and nicotene) myself

here is one of many articles on WHY they should be legal

2) it might drive up the price, it might not. Criminals are already buying them on the black market and paying those prices. Moreover, there are many guns from overseas that are much cheaper than ones sold in the US. The only reason that they arent smuggled in is because US demands are currently met.


edit: sorry, here is the article
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dbz061699.html

edit: and one more
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

So just to be clear, a gun ban wont work because drugs bans dont work, and even though drug bans are utterly ineffective you still want to waste police resources, court resources and lock up tax paying citizens....why if it doesnt work, and why dont the reasons for doing it even though it does not work apply to guns if they are such a good comparison.
You side stepped my question.

Do you have any rational reason to believe that banning guns will have any affect on a criminals ability to obtain guns?

And no, I don't propose to waste police resources etc. (concidering that I dont believe it's a waste). Personally, while capitol punishment for drug users might seem harsh... it would certainly reduce the number of repeat offenders.

You side stepped my question.

Do you have any rational reason to believe that banning guns will have any affect on a criminals ability to obtain guns?

And no, I don't propose to waste police resources etc. (concidering that I dont believe it's a waste). Personally, while capitol punishment for drug users might seem harsh... it would certainly reduce the number of repeat offenders.

You advocate capital punishment for drug addicts? LMFAO! Scary man, just scary...

Anyways, we've brought in guns and drugs into the same argument, and there's the problem. They are two very different issues.

Again, you make it seem vastly easier than it is to get guns on the black market.

Otherwise, muggers and convenience store robbers wouldn't just put their hand in their pockets, they'd actually get a real gun.

Everyone is side tracking the issue by bringing drugs into the equation. They are irrelevant.I don't know why they were brought up or why they are still being discussed.

Back to guns and why they are necessary in a free society.

First: By becoming the citizen of a country, a person enters into a contract with said state. The state is obligated to fullfill certain obligations, securing personal safety at the most primitive level, and citizens agree to give up a portion of their personal freedoms in return.

Now, assuming the government were to keep its end of the bargain to perfection, guns would not be needed. However, the state is controlled by men, not angels (hmmmm even Lucifer, the brightest angel, was not above corruption. So I'd probably be weary of angels as well). Therefore, guns are needed so that the citizens may defend themselves against percieved/real threats from other citizens or the govenment itself.

I, for one, refuse to be oppressed or taken advantage of. I concider it my right and obligation to kill anyone or anything that seeks to violate my contract with the state in regards to personal safety and my remaining freedoms. Most of the people in this forum probably come from Western style democracies and have a difficult time picturing a government shifting into a state of tyrany. I do not believe any govenment in the world, even my own in America, is above oppression. The Weimer Republic, one of the most liberal and "Western" in Europe at the time, transformed into Hitler's Third Reich rather quickly. (A bit extreme I know, but its only an example. There are countless others).

When a government restricts the ownership of firearms (among law-abiding citizens), it is purposefully inhibited the ability to resist oppression. This is a danger I will not tolerate.

A revolution every now and then is a healthy thing, even if we must join Brutus and Cassius in Satan's maw for it.

None of those ideologies are Modern Liberal beliefs, Modern Liberals believe that the individual is the conerstone of society and that they must in turn except social responsability. Any beliefs outside of these are just the beliefs held by the majority of Liberals.

I see America is still arguing with itself over gun ownership. I have a question for the pro-gun side.

You like to say it isn't guns that kill people, it's people, and there is a discussion higher up this thread about studies into how gun ownership affects death rates, shooting family members etc, and the pro-gun side are saying among other things that people would still kill themselves and others even if they didn't have guns.

My question therefore is:

If gun ownership isn't affecting your murder rate, are you just a nation of bloodthirsty murderous bastards? If you would be killing this many people without guns, what is it that makes you joint 21st in the world for murder?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

EDIT: and 4th in the world for murders with firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

EDIT: and 8th in the world for murders with firearms per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Everyone is side tracking the issue by bringing drugs into the equation. They are irrelevant.I don't know why they were brought up or why they are still being discussed.

Back to guns and why they are necessary in a free society.

First: By becoming the citizen of a country, a person enters into a contract with said state. The state is obligated to fullfill certain obligations, securing personal safety at the most primitive level, and citizens agree to give up a portion of their personal freedoms in return.

Now, assuming the government were to keep its end of the bargain to perfection, guns would not be needed. However, the state is controlled by men, not angels (hmmmm even Lucifer, the brightest angel, was not above corruption. So I'd probably be weary of angels as well). Therefore, guns are needed so that the citizens may defend themselves against percieved/real threats from other citizens or the govenment itself.

I, for one, refuse to be oppressed or taken advantage of. I concider it my right and obligation to kill anyone or anything that seeks to violate my contract with the state in regards to personal safety and my remaining freedoms. Most of the people in this forum probably come from Western style democracies and have a difficult time picturing a government shifting into a state of tyrany. I do not believe any govenment in the world, even my own in America, is above oppression. The Weimer Republic, one of the most liberal and "Western" in Europe at the time, transformed into Hitler's Third Reich rather quickly. (A bit extreme I know, but its only an example. There are countless others).

When a government restricts the ownership of firearms (among law-abiding citizens), it is purposefully inhibited the ability to resist oppression. This is a danger I will not tolerate.

A revolution every now and then is a healthy thing, even if we must join Brutus and Cassius in Satan's maw for it.


How odd to start a post by saying that guns are irrelevant, and spend the rest of the post discussing guns. If guns are needed so that the citizens may defend themselves against percieved/real threats from other citizens or the govenment itself what about all the countries whose citizens don't have guns? How come lots of them suffer less crime, murder, state oppression?

Furthermore, do you really think guns are necessary to protect oneself from a perceived threat? Like i should shoot you if you appear to me to be dangerous?

And finally if guns are necessary to protect us from possible state tyranny, are tanks necessary? and F16s? Should everyone be allowed nukes in their yard, in case of state tyranny? Because really you and 50 of your buddies with hunting rifles aren't going to last long against a detachment of navy seals with helicopter support.

Libertianism is universal ideology about individuality and freedom.
It's not really tied to any other beliefs there are right-wing as well as left-wing liberals. Libertianism in it's true form is an ideology about individual freedom. Freedom to be yourself, freedom to do what you want in your life.
These kind of "american liberals" beliefs discussed here aren't really what liberalism is all about and it would be really nice if people would understand it.

During our current "war on drugs" are drugs hard to get? Nope, quite easy. Sold on many street corners in just about every city of sizable population.
No, because the purpose of the war on drugs isn't to make drugs harder to get, it's to keep certain segments of society in jail instead of in a place where they can possibly change society.

" what about all the countries whose citizens don't have guns? How come lots of them suffer less crime, murder, state oppression?"

* Most of the countries that do not permit gun ownership have higher crime rates ("hot" burglaries, theft, etc). State oppression? I am a classical liberal and I certainly have gripes with my country's domestic policies, but I see very few examples of state oppression in my midst. I hate the Drug War and the damage it does to the Bill of Rights, but the equivilent of the 4th Amenment does not exist in all European countries. To me, that is far more oppressive.

Furthermore, do you really think guns are necessary to protect oneself from a perceived threat? Like i should shoot you if you appear to me to be dangerous?

* Yes. An assailent with a gun has a distict advantage. This is not calculus. If you shoot me because I "appear" to be dangerous, you will go to jail. If you shoot me because I pose a clear threat to your life or the lives of your family, I will be buried and you will be sued, but at least you'll be alive.

And finally if guns are necessary to protect us from possible state tyranny, are tanks necessary? and F16s? Should everyone be allowed nukes in their yard, in case of state tyranny? Because really you and 50 of your buddies with hunting rifles aren't going to last long against a detachment of navy seals with helicopter support.

* Yours is a logical argument, but is quite irrelevent. There is no lobby for tanks, the H-bomb, F-16s, etc. Nor is there some big outcry from the people to have a M1A1 in their back yard.

Most of the countries that do not permit gun ownership have higher crime rates

The US has, in the world
joint 21st highest murder rate per capita
8th highest murder with firearms rate per capita
16th highest burglary rate per capita

Are you telling me that "most countries who don't allow gun ownership" comes to 7 countries? or 20?


the equivilent of the 4th Amenment does not exist in all European countries. To me, that is far more oppressive.

In which european country (and I mean free europe, the EU and EEA) can the state enter, search, sieze etc without either a warrant or in an emergency? Plus the 4th amendment doesn't protect you against seizure. If it did, your car couldn't be towed. It protects you against "unreasonable seizure"


An assailent with a gun has a distict advantage. This is not calculus.
There's a big difference between something giving you an advantage and something being needed.

Yours is a logical argument, but is quite irrelevent. There is no lobby for tanks, the H-bomb, F-16s, etc. Nor is there some big outcry from the people to have a M1A1 in their back yard.

Do you think if automatic weapons were fully legal, the NRA would all go home? Or woulf they start campaigning for their constitutional right to bear RPGs?

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
The NRA is bad because it's a racist organization.



And you believe that why?

"The US has, in the world
joint 21st highest murder rate per capita
8th highest murder with firearms rate per capita
16th highest burglary rate per capita

Are you telling me that "most countries who don't allow gun ownership" comes to 7 countries? or 20?"

Via Interpol and the FBI the CRIME RATE COMPARISON
Per 100,000
* 4161 - US
* 7736 - Germany
* 6941 - France
* 9927 - England and Wales

"In which european country (and I mean free europe, the EU and EEA) can the state enter, search, sieze etc without either a warrant or in an emergency? Plus the 4th amendment doesn't protect you against seizure. If it did, your car couldn't be towed. It protects you against "unreasonable seizure""

There protections are no greater than ours. Although this is one of my riffs with the US...seizure laws putting the burden of proof ass backward, thanks to RICO statutes upheld by many asinine courts. But please, tell me about this widespread oppression in America?


"There's a big difference between something giving you an advantage and something being needed. "

When a violent criminal is armed (and they most often are) he or she has the advantage. Outlawing private gun ownership will do nothing more than increase that advantage. And, by the way, you are in no position to tell others what they need or do not need since your knowledge of their situation is finite if existant at all. And yet another thing, a "need" is not the basis for a Right, which gun ownership is.


"Do you think if automatic weapons were fully legal, the NRA would all go home? Or woulf they start campaigning for their constitutional right to bear RPGs?"

* The NRA isn't lobbying for legal automatic weapons. They've been illegal well before Hangun Control, Inc and the Clinton administration came along. Like I said, your argument is irrelevent.

Have you ever started a thread that doesn't make us Americans look like arrogant assholes? Gee, thanks a lot, you stupid yankee.

Liberal Thinking

Sadly, we don't know who wrote this, but we are delighted to share it with
those of you who have requested it:...............................................................................
We hope you've enjoyed todays class, please come again.

This type of bigoted stereotyping serves only one purpose, to foster divisiveness and hate. It's obvious to me that this writer has no respect for those that have differing opinions from his/her own and there's absolutely no chance of discussion or compromise with this person. Saw a film the other day of a guy with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off.

Liberal Thinking

Sadly, we don't know who wrote this, but we are delighted to share it with
those of you who have requested it:

I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought.
I understand classical liberalism.

What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help
me.

As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:

* You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

* IF there is a church that is valid it has been pre-approved by the
government.

* You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand
... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

* You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't
teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

* You have to believe that everyone on the internet is a pervert BUT
the school officials who want to do vaginal exams on your daughter without
telling you have your best interest at heart.

* You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and
doctors are overpaid.

* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected
by yuppies driving SUVs.

* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.

* You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty,
fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

* You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

* You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.

* You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

* You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they
stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

* You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too
high.

* You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria
Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson,
General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

* You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

* You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

* You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie
O'Donnell is not really a man who is jealous of Tom Selleck.

* You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people
couldn't make it without your help.

* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.


Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced
of logic and a bit sadistic.

Well, then.

If that doesn't describe the modern American liberal, I don't know what
does.

Author Unknown

We hope you've enjoyed todays class, please come again.

"Author Unknown" for very good reason I bet: shame.

I don't believe any of that and I don't know anybody who does (at least not that I consider sane). So I guess that makes me a centrist? OK. But that bunch of whacky prejudices explains a lot about what conservatives think of liberals.

You advocate capital punishment for drug addicts? LMFAO! Scary man, just scary...

Anyways, we've brought in guns and drugs into the same argument, and there's the problem. They are two very different issues.

Again, you make it seem vastly easier than it is to get guns on the black market.

Otherwise, muggers and convenience store robbers wouldn't just put their hand in their pockets, they'd actually get a real gun.
You've side stepped my question yet again.

Answer the question.......

The US has, in the world
joint 21st highest murder rate per capita
8th highest murder with firearms rate per capita
16th highest burglary rate per capita

Are you telling me that "most countries who don't allow gun ownership" comes to 7 countries? or 20?"

Via Interpol and the FBI the CRIME RATE COMPARISON
Per 100,000
* 4161 - US
* 7736 - Germany
* 6941 - France
* 9927 - England and Wales



There are fewer crimes per capita in the US? Since you are generally all so law abiding and peaceful, how come your murder rate is so high? Could it be because so many people own lethal weapons?



"In which european country (and I mean free europe, the EU and EEA) can the state enter, search, sieze etc without either a warrant or in an emergency? Plus the 4th amendment doesn't protect you against seizure. If it did, your car couldn't be towed. It protects you against "unreasonable seizure""

There protections are no greater than ours. Although this is one of my riffs with the US...seizure laws putting the burden of proof ass backward, thanks to RICO statutes upheld by many asinine courts. But please, tell me about this widespread oppression in America?


I never mentioned oppression. You mentioned oppression. I never said protection of citizens in Europe was better than that in America. You said it was worse. I asked you where it was worse. You can't tell me.


"There's a big difference between something giving you an advantage and something being needed. "

When a violent criminal is armed (and they most often are) he or she has the advantage. Outlawing private gun ownership will do nothing more than increase that advantage. And, by the way, you are in no position to tell others what they need or do not need since your knowledge of their situation is finite if existant at all. And yet another thing, a "need" is not the basis for a Right, which gun ownership is.


I'm asking you why you think guns are needed. In your previous post, you said guns are needed. You still haven't said why.

Needs are reasonably innate things - you need food to live, you need air to breathe. Rights are accorded by the government. The constitution says you have a right to bear arms, so you have this right. It doesn't say you have the right to steal, so you don't have that right. If one day they took away your right to bear arms and replaced it with the right to steal you'd no longer have the right to bear arms.

It's just a matter of law.

What happened to the idea of moderation?!?
The Libertarians? Voluntary associations (charities and businesses) can do things better than coercive govt.

We'll face the facts, it is evidently clear that liberal democrats care more about domestic policy then foreign policy, and conservative vice versa. Liberals believe strongly in civil rights while conservatives believe in political freedom. Liberals believe the government should watch over and take care of them like little children, while conservatives believe you should learn to take care of yourself and we'll support the foundation you work off of. Democrats believe in Clintons "8-year prosperity term" when in truth it was more like a five year term. The last years of his presidency was a strong recession. Democrats bash Bush for two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. During Clintons "8-year prosperity term" he took us to five wars, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Somolia, and Uzbekistan. Most democrats dont even remember half of those wars OR TRY TO FORGET. Why? Because we LOST all five of those wars. Thousands of American soldiers died during those wars and we chickened out and ran under Clintons administration.

My Uncle died in Kosovo. I heard its a honor to die in battle, but i didnt see his death honorable because the cause he died for, his mission was not accomplished. He died in vain and i can thank Clinton for that. 1000 american soldiers have died in Iraq in a year and a half time but their deaths arent in vain, because we are still there and we REFUSE TO QUIT, thats why we'll win. Take into account, it took a year and a half for 1000 brave american soldiers to die in iraq, it took 1000 american civilians a hour and a half to die on 9/11, took a 1000 american soldiers 38 minutes to die on D-Day, it took 1000 american soldiers a month and a half to die in Kosovo.

Tally up Clintons eight year term and Clinton took us to 2-3 wars per a term thus he took us to more wars then Bush did so whats the difference? Oh yea WE HAVE BACKBONE NOW! Our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were accomplished, the Taliban is dead, Saddam is in jail, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, now we just have to clean house. Its gonna be rough because we are trying to solidify the backbone, the HQ of world terrorism, we are trying to attack the heart of world terrorism and terrorists wont give up that territory easily. When we solidify this position, terrorists will be brought to their knee's that is why they are trying so desperately to fight us off with these gurilla tactics. They know they will lose, Bush has the backbone and the resolve to bring us to victory, we will not be stopped and as long as Bush is president the terrorists know they are finished. Like the Japanese in WWII, they resolved to Kamikaze's in the end because they knew they had to resolve to drastic measures or they would lose.

You've side stepped my question yet again.

Answer the question.......
Do you have any rational reason to believe that banning guns will have any affect on a criminals ability to obtain guns?

Yes. I'm not saying every last criminal will go gun-less (of course not), but you cloud the issue by labeling them all "criminals". Not every gun crime is committed by what you mean when you say criminal (i.e. gang member and the like). A great number of school shootings would have been, if not prevented, at least not as great a casualty. The average joe who has a licenced handgun, but goes nuts when he sees his wife cheating on him and shoots her, would he have just "got it on the black market" otherwise?

In all actuality, I do not support the total ban of guns, I tend to be pretty open to regulation and the like, even for high-end stuff like machine guns (after all, there are responsible collectors and enthusiasts in America who shouldn't be denied their fancy M16). However, I distrust those who say "All criminals will just get their guns otherwise".

Yes. I'm not saying every last criminal will go gun-less (of course not), but you cloud the issue by labeling them all "criminals". Not every gun crime is committed by what you mean when you say criminal (i.e. gang member and the like). A great number of school shootings would have been, if not prevented, at least not as great a casualty. The average joe who has a licenced handgun, but goes nuts when he sees his wife cheating on him and shoots her, would he have just "got it on the black market" otherwise?

In all actuality, I do not support the total ban of guns, I tend to be pretty open to regulation and the like, even for high-end stuff like machine guns (after all, there are responsible collectors and enthusiasts in America who shouldn't be denied their fancy M16). However, I distrust those who say "All criminals will just get their guns otherwise".
Ok, yes, you say you have a rational reason for believing that banning guns would have an affect on a criminals ability to obtain guns.

Im not trying to make a broad point here. Im trying to make a very narrow one in fact. Im not discussing accidental gun use, or defensive gun use or anything of the sort. The only issue (point) I am trying to make, is with all the experience we've had with banning things (alcohol, drugs) and the fact that it's extremely easy for anyone to purchase drugs, and during prohibition it was infact easier to purchase alcohol than before, simply due to the higher ammount being shipped in, you still believe that banning guns would have an affect on a criminals' ability to obtain one.

What is your rational reason behind believing that banning guns would have an affect on a criminals' ability to obtain one?

putting a ban on automatic weapons is pointless. Its like banning drugs, doesnt matter if their banned, if you got the money, your gonna get the drugs, same with automatic weapons. The only thing you can do is hunt them down one by one, just like drug busts and sting operations. You can put a ban on automatic weapons, but that aint gonna stop a criminal from getting one, because they are criminals, they enjoy breaking the law.

Someone once explained the whole liberal vs conservative thing to me and it made a lot of sense.

Liberals want to be your mom.
Conservatives want to be your dad.

Your mom wants to protect you from all harm, from bad words that might hurt you. Wants to protect you from making mistakes. Make safety regulations about anything and everything that might hurt you. Wants you to feel good about yourself (even if you aren't that good at soccer). Provide for you even after you "leave the nest" and are out on your own. If you stumble on the way (lose a job, or do poorly in school, become sick/injured), they want to take care of you.

Your dad wants to protect you from harm, but understands that sometimes the best way for you to learn is for you to make mistakes. When you fall off your bike, helps you get back on for another try. Willing to help you if something goes wrong, but feels that earning you own keep helps promote your own self respect and sense of self worth. Doesnt want to protect you against bad words or bullies because he thinks that you need to learn to protect yourself.

So, who's better for society.. your mom or your dad?

Someone once explained the whole liberal vs conservative thing to me and it made a lot of sense.

Liberals want to be your mom.
Conservatives want to be your dad.

Your mom wants to protect you from all harm, from bad words that might hurt you. Wants to protect you from making mistakes. Make safety regulations about anything and everything that might hurt you. Wants you to feel good about yourself (even if you aren't that good at soccer). Provide for you even after you "leave the nest" and are out on your own. If you stumble on the way (lose a job, or do poorly in school, become sick/injured), they want to take care of you.

Your dad wants to protect you from harm, but understands that sometimes the best way for you to learn is for you to make mistakes. When you fall off your bike, helps you get back on for another try. Willing to help you if something goes wrong, but feels that earning you own keep helps promote your own self respect and sense of self worth. Doesnt want to protect you against bad words or bullies because he thinks that you need to learn to protect yourself.

So, who's better for society.. your mom or your dad?
Libertarians want to treat you like a grown up. Time to leave the nest, little birdie!

Someone once explained the whole liberal vs conservative thing to me and it made a lot of sense.

Liberals want to be your mom.
Conservatives want to be your dad.

Your mom wants to protect you from all harm, from bad words that might hurt you. Wants to protect you from making mistakes. Make safety regulations about anything and everything that might hurt you. Wants you to feel good about yourself (even if you aren't that good at soccer). Provide for you even after you "leave the nest" and are out on your own. If you stumble on the way (lose a job, or do poorly in school, become sick/injured), they want to take care of you.

Your dad wants to protect you from harm, but understands that sometimes the best way for you to learn is for you to make mistakes. When you fall off your bike, helps you get back on for another try. Willing to help you if something goes wrong, but feels that earning you own keep helps promote your own self respect and sense of self worth. Doesnt want to protect you against bad words or bullies because he thinks that you need to learn to protect yourself.

So, who's better for society.. your mom or your dad?

wow, what horrible gender roles. i seriously pity anybody who has parents that subscribe to such roles; both of my parents fit both of those descriptions, and i don't see how anybody could grow up to be well-adjusted if they were initiated into such silly divisions as the ones you describe.

so my answer, as with the political "wings," is that neither "mom" nor "dad" is good for an individual or for a society. to be a good parent you must be a balanced blend of both, and to be a good government you must not seek to "parent" citizens at all.

Someone once explained the whole liberal vs conservative thing to me and it made a lot of sense.

Liberals want to be your mom.
Conservatives want to be your dad.

Your mom wants to protect you from all harm, from bad words that might hurt you. Wants to protect you from making mistakes. Make safety regulations about anything and everything that might hurt you. Wants you to feel good about yourself (even if you aren't that good at soccer). Provide for you even after you "leave the nest" and are out on your own. If you stumble on the way (lose a job, or do poorly in school, become sick/injured), they want to take care of you.

Your dad wants to protect you from harm, but understands that sometimes the best way for you to learn is for you to make mistakes. When you fall off your bike, helps you get back on for another try. Willing to help you if something goes wrong, but feels that earning you own keep helps promote your own self respect and sense of self worth. Doesnt want to protect you against bad words or bullies because he thinks that you need to learn to protect yourself.

So, who's better for society.. your mom or your dad?

Interesting viewpoint...going by your analogy, I'd say a bit of both. Alternately, you could describe the dad as ignoring you when you need help.

I've come to identify myself as half-Libertarian, half modern (or welfare) liberal.

Anyways, bout the guns, I still hold that it's not THAT easy for average criminals to get them, unless they have connections through gangs and the like. Hence the number of robberies pulled off without an actual firearm. Banning guns or severely regulating them does keep them out of the hands of certain people, but obviously not all. It's kind of strange actually, I've started advocating something I don't really believe in, banning guns. I support regulation, and a lot of it on higher-end stuff, but I fundamentally believe we as citizens should be able to get guns...all guns.

But I still think that it leads to more violence in general, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's quite possible that if all violence was banned from the media, that crime levels among youth would fall SOMEWHAT. But would I advocate such a thing? Hell no.

liberals believe that no matter where you were born, or to whom, you should have the exact same oppurtunities as everyone else. all their policies, even some of their misguided ones, stem from that simple philosophy

Yes. I'm not saying every last criminal will go gun-less (of course not), but you cloud the issue by labeling them all "criminals". Not every gun crime is committed by what you mean when you say criminal (i.e. gang member and the like). A great number of school shootings would have been, if not prevented, at least not as great a casualty. The average joe who has a licenced handgun, but goes nuts when he sees his wife cheating on him and shoots her, would he have just "got it on the black market" otherwise?

In all actuality, I do not support the total ban of guns, I tend to be pretty open to regulation and the like, even for high-end stuff like machine guns (after all, there are responsible collectors and enthusiasts in America who shouldn't be denied their fancy M16). However, I distrust those who say "All criminals will just get their guns otherwise".
There are 2 results of banning guns on crime rates. One is that it being harder to get guns crime will INCREASE, the other is that disarmed citizens make easier targets (less disincentive to commit crime) and thus crime will DECREASE. We can't tell which effect is greater without looking at the facts, and the facts say that overall gun bans INCREASE crime.

Even then there is the moral issue, "is it acceptable for the govt to use guns to take guns away from peaceful law abiding people"? I mean, surely skydiving isn't good for you but we don't ban it. (or do we? I bet someone does).

After that we still have other benefits of an armed population which can act to check domestic tyranny and foreign invasion, as was seen when the American army was routed in Somalia by lightly armed militias.

Overall both the moral arguments and the utilitarian arguments come in favour of respecting peoples' right to bear arms.

Interesting viewpoint...going by your analogy, I'd say a bit of both. Alternately, you could describe the dad as ignoring you when you need help.

I've come to identify myself as half-Libertarian, half modern (or welfare) liberal.

Anyways, bout the guns, I still hold that it's not THAT easy for average criminals to get them, unless they have connections through gangs and the like. Hence the number of robberies pulled off without an actual firearm. Banning guns or severely regulating them does keep them out of the hands of certain people, but obviously not all. It's kind of strange actually, I've started advocating something I don't really believe in, banning guns. I support regulation, and a lot of it on higher-end stuff, but I fundamentally believe we as citizens should be able to get guns...all guns.

But I still think that it leads to more violence in general, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's quite possible that if all violence was banned from the media, that crime levels among youth would fall SOMEWHAT. But would I advocate such a thing? Hell no.
You'd ban guns and support welfare? Exactly what half of you is Libertarian?

You like to say it isn't guns that kill people, it's people, and there is a discussion higher up this thread about studies into how gun ownership affects death rates, shooting family members etc, and the pro-gun side are saying among other things that people would still kill themselves and others even if they didn't have guns.

My question therefore is:

If gun ownership isn't affecting your murder rate, are you just a nation of bloodthirsty murderous bastards? If you would be killing this many people without guns, what is it that makes you joint 21st in the world for murder?


I dont fully understand your post. The US NON FIREARM murder rate,by itself, is higher than the overall murder rate of most modern countries. Clearly there is something leading to violence in this society, more fundamentel than just gun ownership.

"There are fewer crimes per capita in the US? Since you are generally all so law abiding and peaceful, how come your murder rate is so high? Could it be because so many people own lethal weapons?"

At issue was which country had the higher crime rates. Simply because rape is not murder doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT:
" what about all the countries whose citizens don't have guns? How come lots of them suffer less crime, murder, state oppression?"

1. The overall crime rate is less in the US
2. The murder rate is higher in the US
3. Where is the state oppression? Stating that other countries have less state oppression implies we have at least some state oppression.

You asked if guns are necessary to defend against a perceived threat. I answered yes, because there is an equal possibility that it is an actual threat.

"Needs are reasonably innate things - you need food to live, you need air to breathe. Rights are accorded by the government. The constitution says you have a right to bear arms, so you have this right. It doesn't say you have the right to steal, so you don't have that right. If one day they took away your right to bear arms and replaced it with the right to steal you'd no longer have the right to bear arms."

I guess that is where we part company philosophically. You believe rights are "accorded" by government, I believe government was created to protect those rights that I was endowed with. There are very few strong philosophical arguments for theft let alone a right to theft-there are legions of arguments for the right of self-defense and self-preservation.

liberals believe that no matter where you were born, or to whom, you should have the exact same oppurtunities as everyone else. all their policies, even some of their misguided ones, stem from that simple philosophy

The problem is that liberals tend to believe in EQUITY not EQUALITY. There is a huge difference.

For example, liberals believe that a person of humble origins, for some reason he usually has to be a minority as well, should end the race that we call life relatively equal to everyone else.

This is not the case. Certain people have head starts and others naturally run faster. This is natural law.

Should we force these people to slow down and wait for the rest to catch up?

No. To do so would come at a cost to the advancement of society and the human race. Personal incentives and motivations drive us to reach new levels and establish ourselves over others. It is this competative environment that stimulates improvement among individual components. Socialism removes personal incentive, leading to stagnation and performance uniformity. For this reason, I believe Socialism to be the greatest current threat to America and to mankind.

What EQUALITY truely dictates, is that the gun is fired and every runner in the race is allowed to progress to the best of his/her abilty without interference from other runners. Now some runners will "beat" others. However, the race is actually a relay race, and the baton is handed off to subsequent generations. As a result, a runner from humble origins can end his race in a better position to be inherited by those that follow him. Over a span of generations, ability will dictate the position of the runners and their position within society. It is how you run the race itself, not you final position, that truely matters.

The problem is that liberals tend to believe in EQUITY not EQUALITY. There is a huge difference.

For example, liberals believe that a person of humble origins, for some reason he usually has to be a minority as well, should end the race that we call life relatively equal to everyone else.

This is not the case. Certain people have head starts and others naturally run faster. This is natural law.

Should we force these people to slow down and wait for the rest to catch up?

No. To do so would come at a cost to the advancement of society and the human race. Personal incentives and motivations drive us to reach new levels and establish ourselves over others. It is this competative environment that stimulates improvement among individual components. Socialism removes personal incentive, leading to stagnation and performance uniformity. For this reason, I believe Socialism to be the greatest current threat to America and to mankind.

What EQUALITY truely dictates, is that the gun is fired and every runner in the race is allowed to progress to the best of his/her abilty without interference from other runners. Now some runners will "beat" others. However, the race is actually a relay race, and the baton is handed off to subsequent generations. As a result, a runner from humble origins can end his race in a better position to be inherited by those that follow him. Over a span of generations, ability will dictate the position of the runners and their position within society. It is how you run the race itself, not you final position, that truely matters.

the race is a relay race, and it sucks because the faster runners dont contribute much to society since they are so far out of the race. the ideal society is one that can bring everybody back to the starting line every generation. otherwise, a lot of natural talent is lost and a lot of people arent running as fast as they can because they feel there is no chance to catch up.

and where you end up really does matter. somebody whos been running at a full sprint his whole life ends up in a tenemant in brooklyn while somebody whos been crawling ends up in beverly hills isnt fair.

also, the ones in the lead stay in the lead because they are the ones with power. the truth is, capitalism creates the haves and the haves not unless theres a bit of intervention.

Liberal Thinking..!?

Where..!!!?

Bottom line, there isn't a ban on ALL GUNS. Nobody is disarming anybody. The ban is on assult weapons. I keep a .45 at home. I don't think crazy neighbor Bob needs an oozie. I don't need a laser guide, I practice with my weapon at a nearby firing range. Nobody has ever come to me to ask for its return. If I had an AK-47, I think it would be a different story. I don't need a sniper rifle, and I personally think that the previously banned weapons were appropriately banned. It never imposed on my rights to have a firearm at all. I got my weapon registered, I have passed a gun-safety class (which, by the way, was NOT required), and I lock the thing up if there are children in the house. I have this weapon because I was attacked in my home almost five years ago. Even I don't think assult weapons are necessary.

FYI, there is no true BAN on assult rifles, AND
Each state has its OWN laws on assult rifles, there is no NEED for a country wide ban.

Fact:
ANYONE without a criminal record CAN own a class 3 (Automatic) firearm, BAN OR NOT! All you have to do is submit for a criminal investigation, AND pay a $100 tax per item, and per accessory for each weapon you buy... I have 3. M 16's that is.

Your point is moot!

Liberal Thinking..!?

Where..!!!?

EWWWW somebody learned to play with html!

Good for you!

You get a gold star!

:rolleyes:

Bottom line, there isn't a ban on ALL GUNS. Nobody is disarming anybody. The ban is on assult weapons. I keep a .45 at home. I don't think crazy neighbor Bob needs an oozie. I don't need a laser guide, I practice with my weapon at a nearby firing range. Nobody has ever come to me to ask for its return. If I had an AK-47, I think it would be a different story. I don't need a sniper rifle, and I personally think that the previously banned weapons were appropriately banned. It never imposed on my rights to have a firearm at all. I got my weapon registered, I have passed a gun-safety class (which, by the way, was NOT required), and I lock the thing up if there are children in the house. I have this weapon because I was attacked in my home almost five years ago. Even I don't think assult weapons are necessary.
Just for my own personal edification... when you say that you think the previously banned weapons.. just which weapons are you refering to... specifically.

You'd ban guns and support welfare? Exactly what half of you is Libertarian?

No, I wouldn't ban guns, although it may have come across like that, I just support regulation. I wouldn't even ban machine guns, unlike many moderate conservatives.

I believe first and foremost in personal freedom. That's the essense of Libertarianism, and liberalism overlaps nicely in certain areas too.

I'm Libertarian on social issues like gay marriage, pornography in public libraries, abortion (although I have more liberal reasons as well), drugs, obscenity laws (sometimes against liberals, especially on PC issues), affirmative action (here I go against liberals all the time), capital punishment (ultimate denying of freedom), flag-burning, basically all forms of free speech...and gun control (regulation, but not banning any form of firearm, except for missiles I suppose).

But then again I'm firmly in support of a nice welfare state, so there goes my Libertarian lassez faire ideals. ;)

Bottom line, there isn't a ban on ALL GUNS. Nobody is disarming anybody. The ban is on assult weapons. I keep a .45 at home. I don't think crazy neighbor Bob needs an oozie. I don't need a laser guide, I practice with my weapon at a nearby firing range. Nobody has ever come to me to ask for its return. If I had an AK-47, I think it would be a different story. I don't need a sniper rifle, and I personally think that the previously banned weapons were appropriately banned. It never imposed on my rights to have a firearm at all. I got my weapon registered, I have passed a gun-safety class (which, by the way, was NOT required), and I lock the thing up if there are children in the house. I have this weapon because I was attacked in my home almost five years ago. Even I don't think assult weapons are necessary.
Some Repubs are so focused on NRA that any gun not allowed seems wrong to them. I never understood why they needed Semi assualts or though not likely to happen assaults personally. But I guess attaching a geneade launcher to your rifle makes hunting easier!

[Freedomstein #88]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaweshurshire
The problem is that liberals tend to believe in EQUITY not EQUALITY. There is a huge difference.

For example, liberals believe that a person of humble origins, for some reason he usually has to be a minority as well, should end the race that we call life relatively equal to everyone else.

This is not the case. Certain people have head starts and others naturally run faster. This is natural law.

Should we force these people to slow down and wait for the rest to catch up?

No. To do so would come at a cost to the advancement of society and the human race. Personal incentives and motivations drive us to reach new levels and establish ourselves over others. It is this competative environment that stimulates improvement among individual components. Socialism removes personal incentive, leading to stagnation and performance uniformity. For this reason, I believe Socialism to be the greatest current threat to America and to mankind.

What EQUALITY truely dictates, is that the gun is fired and every runner in the race is allowed to progress to the best of his/her abilty without interference from other runners. Now some runners will "beat" others. However, the race is actually a relay race, and the baton is handed off to subsequent generations. As a result, a runner from humble origins can end his race in a better position to be inherited by those that follow him. Over a span of generations, ability will dictate the position of the runners and their position within society. It is how you run the race itself, not you final position, that truely matters.



the race is a relay race, and it sucks because the faster runners dont contribute much to society since they are so far out of the race. the ideal society is one that can bring everybody back to the starting line every generation. otherwise, a lot of natural talent is lost and a lot of people arent running as fast as they can because they feel there is no chance to catch up.

and where you end up really does matter. somebody whos been running at a full sprint his whole life ends up in a tenemant in brooklyn while somebody whos been crawling ends up in beverly hills isnt fair.

also, the ones in the lead stay in the lead because they are the ones with power. the truth is, capitalism creates the haves and the haves not unless theres a bit of intervention.




.."the ideal society is one that can bring everybody back to the starting line every generation."..

And you would do that with legislation..?

Of course you would. The idea that one generation building on the next, that people might actually want to add more to society, that people are generally good, is SO against your basic beliefs that you'd enforce generational dis-inheritance.

How would you like to wake up every first of the month, and have your property and possessions reduced back to some "starting-line allotment"..?

Then again, you might very well like that as it would most lilkely be an improvement for you.

.." ..a lot of natural talent is lost and a lot of people arent running as fast as they can because they feel there is no chance to catch up."..

Natural talent is never lost. If it can't survive, it's not "natural talent".

Now,.. if fools WITH wealth don't promote those that they see with abilities, and those with those abilities "die off", then society loses and the fools deserve to be punished.

.."the truth is, capitalism creates the haves and the haves not unless theres a bit of intervention."..

The truth is that capitalism works best and anything-but-capitalism doesn't.

The path of redistribution by legislation is tyrany.

Some Repubs are so focused on NRA that any gun not allowed seems wrong to them. I never understood why they needed Semi assualts or though not likely to happen assaults personally. But I guess attaching a geneade launcher to your rifle makes hunting easier!

well yea, but I only use grenades for hunting rabbits.

Shhh, be vewwy vewwwy qwiet, I'm huntin wabit.

FYI, there is no true BAN on assult rifles, AND
Each state has its OWN laws on assult rifles, there is no NEED for a country wide ban.

Fact:
ANYONE without a criminal record CAN own a class 3 (Automatic) firearm, BAN OR NOT! All you have to do is submit for a criminal investigation, AND pay a $100 tax per item, and per accessory for each weapon you buy... I have 3. M 16's that is.

Your point is moot!

Actually, I don't think it is. I said the weapons weren't necessary for home protection. It's OVERKILL. Good for you. You've got big scary weapons. What are you planning on using them for? Storming the local circle-k?

Some Repubs are so focused on NRA that any gun not allowed seems wrong to them. I never understood why they needed Semi assualts or though not likely to happen assaults personally. But I guess attaching a geneade launcher to your rifle makes hunting easier!
Im having difficulty following your thought process....
Semi assaults... what are those?
"though not likely to happen assaults personally."... what does that mean?

Grenade launchers, Im assuming you are being sarcastic here... but how many grenade launchers are actually being used, legally or illegally?

Just for my own personal edification... when you say that you think the previously banned weapons.. just which weapons are you refering to... specifically.

Am I mistaken or didn't a ban on assult rifles just lapse?

Actually, I don't think it is. I said the weapons weren't necessary for home protection. It's OVERKILL. Good for you. You've got big scary weapons. What are you planning on using them for? Storming the local circle-k?
I really didnt want this to degenerate into a gun control thread... but I cant let some things go unchallanged.

What am I planning on using my big scary weapons for?
I have several reasons... collection purposes, shooting paper targets, shooting 2 liter bottles filled with water, shooting empty paint cans, competing in long range rifle matches, blowing the heck out of a direlect car.

Ok, I answered your question.

Gun ownership isnt solely based on personal or home protection. That is just a small part of it.

Besides.. I do NOT need a reason to exorcise my right to own firearms.

Am I mistaken or didn't a ban on assult rifles just lapse?
There was a ban on assault weapons (not rifles) that did just lapse. I was curious if you had any idea what was included in that ban.

I really didnt want this to degenerate into a gun control thread... but I cant let some things go unchallanged.

What am I planning on using my big scary weapons for?
I have several reasons... collection purposes, shooting paper targets, shooting 2 liter bottles filled with water, shooting empty paint cans, competing in long range rifle matches, blowing the heck out of a direlect car.

Ok, I answered your question.

Gun ownership isnt solely based on personal or home protection. That is just a small part of it.

Besides.. I do NOT need a reason to exorcise my right to own firearms.

Good for you. I still fail to see the necessity. Is it that much more rewarding to shoot targets with assult weapons? (I ask because I genuinely don't know as I've never fired one.) So, say your house was robbed while you were away and someone made off with all those fancy weapons? Say that person decided to open fire on a local school? Is it far fetched, probably, but I'd rather they be shooting people with my .45 than your M-16.

The fact is this... we have a RIGHT to protect ourselves from THE GOVERNMENT. We have the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to overthrow an oppresive or tyrannical goverment.

There was a ban on assault weapons (not rifles) that did just lapse. I was curious if you had any idea what was included in that ban.

My mistake... I said rifles instead of weapons. I am aware of the inclusions, however. Here folks, CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/

in addition... hooray for google:

http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_2/Assault_Weapons_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Actually, I don't think it is. I said the weapons weren't necessary for home protection. It's OVERKILL. Good for you. You've got big scary weapons. What are you planning on using them for? Storming the local circle-k?

How about protection... From the Government?

Good for you. I still fail to see the necessity. Is it that much more rewarding to shoot targets with assult weapons? (I ask because I genuinely don't know as I've never fired one.) So, say your house was robbed while you were away and someone made off with all those fancy weapons? Say that person decided to open fire on a local school? Is it far fetched, probably, but I'd rather they be shooting people with my .45 than your M-16.
First of all.. it would take someone with a plasma cutting torch, a bull dozer and a whole heck of a lot of time to take my guns from my house.
Second, it's not a matter of necessity. Please dont get me started on that.
Third, while I cant vouch for anyone else.. I know I can do a whole lot more damage with that .45 than with a M-16. Im faster with the .45 at both aquiring a target and recovering from a shot, I can reload faster, and Im more accurate in a close range changing target situation. That plus the fact that it would be substantially easier to get the .45 into a crowded situation than an M-16.

First of all.. it would take someone with a plasma cutting torch, a bull dozer and a whole heck of a lot of time to take my guns from my house.
Second, it's not a matter of necessity. Please dont get me started on that.
Third, while I cant vouch for anyone else.. I know I can do a whole lot more damage with that .45 than with a M-16. Im faster with the .45 at both aquiring a target and recovering from a shot, I can reload faster, and Im more accurate in a close range changing target situation. That plus the fact that it would be substantially easier to get the .45 into a crowded situation than an M-16.

Depends on range, but yes. I can shoot you with my 223 before you can see me.

How about protection... From the Government?

With all due respect to your 3 M-16s, I don't think they're going to help much if a SWAT team descends upon your property... the government here controls our military. Our military, as you well know, is large and efficient. One guy with 3 M-16s is no significant threat to the government.

My mistake... I said rifles instead of weapons. I am aware of the inclusions, however. Here folks, CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/

in addition... hooray for google:

http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_2/Assault_Weapons_Questions_and_Answers.pdf
LOL.. so THAT's where that other post came from...(another thread, another time)

Your first site doesn't address just what was banned... just the "horror" that will occur when the ban is lifted :rolleyes:

The second site is grosely biased and contains some outright "lies" for lack of a better term.

One thing that is pointed out a few times is that the assault weapon ban was purely cosmetic in nature. It banned scary looking weapons, while allowing other non scary looking versions of the exact same weapon to be allowed. It was a horribly written law, and was based more on emotion than on any rational reasoning.

Depends on range, but yes. I can shoot you with my 223 before you can see me.
True, but the premise I was refering to was school/crowded area shootings.

With all due respect to your 3 M-16s, I don't think they're going to help much if a SWAT team descends upon your property... the government here controls our military. Our military, as you well know, is large and efficient. One guy with 3 M-16s is no significant threat to the government.


... I AM the military. Guess what, ever heard of the National Guard? Each state has its own national guard to protect each state from the govermnent. Oh, and if I have to fight the govenment, it wont be with a M16, but it might be with an F16.

[The Black Forrest #92]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Liberal Thinking..!?

Where..!!!?



EWWWW somebody learned to play with html!

Good for you!

You get a gold star!

Thank you. :D

Since we've got the photons to play with,.. why wait for recess..!?

With all due respect to your 3 M-16s, I don't think they're going to help much if a SWAT team descends upon your property... the government here controls our military. Our military, as you well know, is large and efficient. One guy with 3 M-16s is no significant threat to the government.
No, but 200,000,000 with 3 M-16's would be a very significant threat to the government.

True, but the premise I was refering to was school/crowded area shootings.

My point is just that it depends on your situation.

LOL.. so THAT's where that other post came from...(another thread, another time)

Your first site doesn't address just what was banned... just the "horror" that will occur when the ban is lifted :rolleyes:

The second site is grosely biased and contains some outright "lies" for lack of a better term.

One thing that is pointed out a few times is that the assault weapon ban was purely cosmetic in nature. It banned scary looking weapons, while allowing other non scary looking versions of the exact same weapon to be allowed. It was a horribly written law, and was based more on emotion than on any rational reasoning.

That is 100% fact. Walk into any gun shop that sells rifles and ask them.

No, but 200,000,000 with 3 M-16's would be a very significant threat to the government.

Or wouild keep the government from BECOMING a significant threat.

I'm willing to admit I'm subjective here. I have, in my care, on a regular basis, 160 teenagers a day. My concern is for their general well-being. I'd really rather not have them shot to bits by assault weapons. *shrugs* Maybe I'm not the best candidate to discuss this particular issue. No worries.

Ok ok... this thread has gone way way off topic....

Back to modern liberal thought...

It's the impression that I, and some number of other conservatives have that liberals are desiring of a welfare state. Where the government takes care of everyone. I've listented to some liberals claim that the country would be must better off if the government were to just take over all of the nation's companies and rule over everything. And regulate every aspect of our lives. Who we should associate with or what we eat. Basically every aspect except the bedroom... strange enough to say.

That just doesnt make any sense to me.

Ok ok... this thread has gone way way off topic....

Back to modern liberal thought...

It's the impression that I, and some number of other conservatives have that liberals are desiring of a welfare state. Where the government takes care of everyone. I've listented to some liberals claim that the country would be must better off if the government were to just take over all of the nation's companies and rule over everything. And regulate every aspect of our lives. Who we should associate with or what we eat. Basically every aspect except the bedroom... strange enough to say.

That just doesnt make any sense to me.

Some liberals aren't all liberals. I personally would rather NOT see anything like that happen. Nor would the liberals I hang out with.

After reading that, I can say that I am proud to be Liberal.

Ok ok... this thread has gone way way off topic....

Back to modern liberal thought...

It's the impression that I, and some number of other conservatives have that liberals are desiring of a welfare state. Where the government takes care of everyone. I've listented to some liberals claim that the country would be must better off if the government were to just take over all of the nation's companies and rule over everything. And regulate every aspect of our lives. Who we should associate with or what we eat. Basically every aspect except the bedroom... strange enough to say.

That just doesnt make any sense to me.

I've never heard any self-described liberal profess any of those beliefs. I have been called a liberal (although I may not really be) so here is my two cents:

I am desiring of a state that provides transient welfare to those who need it on a *temporary* basis. Basically, I have no problem with the government having an option there for people who hit bad times and need some help getting back on their feet, getting a job, and making sure they stay productive members of society.

I don't think the government should take over any corporations, but I think it should regulate those with the most power to harm its citizens. After all, what is the purpose of the government if not to protect its citizens from any that may harm them?

As for what the government should regulate in our lives - the government should not let its citizens go around harming each other. If an action will not harm anyone, the government has no business saying a damn thing about it.

I'm willing to admit I'm subjective here. I have, in my care, on a regular basis, 160 teenagers. My concern is for their general well-being. I'd really rather not have them shot to bits by assault weapons. *shrugs* Maybe I'm not the best candidate to discuss this particular issue. No worries.

You have to look at it from a national view not a class room view...

Should they be in class rooms? No, not unless its a hunting class.

Should we ban them? Hell no. We can't. If we did it would allow our government to become too powerful... consider this quote...

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935

[INDENT][Freedomstein #88]





.."the ideal society is one that can bring everybody back to the starting line every generation."..

And you would do that with legislation..?

Of course you would. The idea that one generation building on the next, that people might actually want to add more to society, that people are generally good, is SO against your basic beliefs that you'd enforce generational dis-inheritance.

How would you like to wake up every first of the month, and have your property and possessions reduced back to some "starting-line allotment"..?

Then again, you might very well like that as it would most lilkely be an improvement for you.

im not against ammassing huge personal fortunes, im against them being passed down from generation to generation. its not capitalistic. the children of the wealthy didnt contribute to society and didnt earn anything, and yet they get millions just handed to them. inheretence is what im against, but thats not the point. the point is those with the most talent are not guarenteed to be the most successfull or even given the tools they need to achieve success.

[quote=.." ..a lot of natural talent is lost and a lot of people arent running as fast as they can because they feel there is no chance to catch up."..

Natural talent is never lost. If it can't survive, it's not "natural talent".

Now,.. if fools WITH wealth don't promote those that they see with abilities, and those with those abilities "die off", then society loses and the fools deserve to be punished.

whats to guarentee those with wealth promote abilities, and whats to say that they give those with abilities the credit they deserve. the government acts as an equalizer, primarily through education. the wealthy protect their wealth, and dont like to share. by promoting those with abilities, they shoot themselves in the foot by creating more competition.

.."the truth is, capitalism creates the haves and the haves not unless theres a bit of intervention."..


The truth is that capitalism works best and anything-but-capitalism doesn't.

The path of redistribution by legislation is tyrany.

relying on the benevolence of the rich is naive. power begets power. poverty begits poverty. the best system is one that uses capitalism to create competition, but uses socialism to make sure that everyone can get into the game.

[QUOTE=Andreuvia]Conservatives say clearcut it all to nonexistence and abandon all safety standards.QUOTE]

This is the primary reason you will never hear me refer to myself as a "conservative."

I use to call myself a conservative until I realized they have weak environmental values, then I called myself a libertarian until I realized they think the law of the jungle should prevail, for a mercifully brief period I even referred to myself as a "classical liberal" until I realized they have problems as well. Now I just refer to myself by my name and let it go at that. :D

[The Black Forrest #92]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Liberal Thinking..!?

Where..!!!?



EWWWW somebody learned to play with html!

Good for you!

You get a gold star!

Thank you. :D

Since we've got the photons to play with,.. why wait for recess..!?

:D :p

I've never heard any self-described liberal profess any of those beliefs. I have been called a liberal (although I may not really be) so here is my two cents:

I am desiring of a state that provides transient welfare to those who need it on a *temporary* basis. Basically, I have no problem with the government having an option there for people who hit bad times and need some help getting back on their feet, getting a job, and making sure they stay productive members of society.

I don't think the government should take over any corporations, but I think it should regulate those with the most power to harm its citizens. After all, what is the purpose of the government if not to protect its citizens from any that may harm them?

As for what the government should regulate in our lives - the government should not let its citizens go around harming each other. If an action will not harm anyone, the government has no business saying a damn thing about it.

Wow! An EXCELLENT and very thoughtful post! You are to be commended!

Most of the rest of you should LISTEN to this person! Their head is screwed on straight! :D

The fact is this... we have a RIGHT to protect ourselves from THE GOVERNMENT. We have the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to overthrow an oppresive or tyrannical goverment.
Is America Oppressive or Tyrannical yet?

You have to look at it from a national view not a class room view...

Should they be in class rooms? No, not unless its a hunting class.

Should we ban them? Hell no. We can't. If we did it would allow our government to become too powerful... consider this quote...

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935

My national view is affected by my kids. The things that they deal with every day are remarkable. The fact that they shouldn't be in the classrooms didn't keep them OUT of the classrooms before.

And what your quote fails to examine is that our government officials (most of them) do not remain the same over time. Hitler remained in power for quite a bit longer than eight years. Becoming the kind of a threat Hitler was would require a conspiracy of a significant scale. We'd have to have the electoral college elect the right candidate every election, we'd need the right people to run, and we'd need to keep the people from knowing that the system was beyond their control... wait... Bush lost the popular vote and still ended up in office.... Maybe you have a point. Up with assault weapons, down with gun registration!

Is America Oppressive or Tyrannical yet?

With Bush in office? Hmmm....

Is America Oppressive or Tyrannical yet?
depends on who you ask.

[Freedomstein #124]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Freedomstein #88]


.."the ideal society is one that can bring everybody back to the starting line every generation."..

And you would do that with legislation..?

Of course you would. The idea that one generation building on the next, that people might actually want to add more to society, that people are generally good, is SO against your basic beliefs that you'd enforce generational dis-inheritance.

How would you like to wake up every first of the month, and have your property and possessions reduced back to some "starting-line allotment"..?

Then again, you might very well like that as it would most lilkely be an improvement for you.



im not against ammassing huge personal fortunes, im against them being passed down from generation to generation. its not capitalistic. the children of the wealthy didnt contribute to society and didnt earn anything, and yet they get millions just handed to them. inheretence is what im against, but thats not the point. the point is those with the most talent are not guarenteed to be the most successfull or even given the tools they need to achieve success.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[quote=.." ..a lot of natural talent is lost and a lot of people arent running as fast as they can because they feel there is no chance to catch up."..

Natural talent is never lost. If it can't survive, it's not "natural talent".

Now,.. if fools WITH wealth don't promote those that they see with abilities, and those with those abilities "die off", then society loses and the fools deserve to be punished.



.."the truth is, capitalism creates the haves and the haves not unless theres a bit of intervention."..

whats to guarentee those with wealth promote abilities, and whats to say that they give those with abilities the credit they deserve. the government acts as an equalizer, primarily through education. the wealthy protect their wealth, and dont like to share. by promoting those with abilities, they shoot themselves in the foot by creating more competition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The truth is that capitalism works best and anything-but-capitalism doesn't.

The path of redistribution by legislation is tyrany.



relying on the benevolence of the rich is naive. power begets power. poverty begits poverty. the best system is one that uses capitalism to create competition, but uses socialism to make sure that everyone can get into the game.

I understand your stand against inheritance.

I disagree with it. Obviously.

The market will out. And the market is bigger than you consider.

The fastest gazelle may make a mistake, and become lion food. Is that fair..?

You misunderstand competition. It is "survival of the fittest", but in ways larger than you consider. Otherwise, all animals would kill their children as "weak competitors".

You believe people are basically bad. I believe the opposite.

The best system (of governance) is minimal interference with "markets". The best system (of economy) is capitalism.

The "market" will balance itself, and individuals will flourish in the environment of the "market".

And what an individual get's, that individual deserves.

Is America Oppressive or Tyrannical yet?

No, not to me thay are not.

[QUOTE=Andreuvia]Conservatives say clearcut it all to nonexistence and abandon all safety standards.QUOTE]

This is the primary reason you will never hear me refer to myself as a "conservative."

I use to call myself a conservative until I realized they have weak environmental values, then I called myself a libertarian until I realized they think the law of the jungle should prevail, for a mercifully brief period I even referred to myself as a "classical liberal" until I realized they have problems as well. Now I just refer to myself by my name and let it go at that. :D
Except there isnt a single conservative out there who wishes to "clearcut it all to nonexistance and abandon all safety standards."

Except there isnt a single conservative out there who wishes to "clearcut it all to nonexistance and abandon all safety standards."

Perhaps not, although there are those who call themselves "conservative" and advocate policies which have, as their perhaps unintended consequence, the same effects.

Except there isnt a single conservative out there who wishes to "clearcut it all to nonexistance and abandon all safety standards."


No they tend to use up the "profitable" trees and cry about the park laws and environmental laws that cause them too loose jobs. You don't have to clear cut a forrest to kill it. A tree falling over/dying and what not is also part of the cycle that helps keep a forrest alive.

As to the safety laws. They tend to want the reduced as they obviously impede business. The battle cry you often hear is "trail lawyers and friviolous lawsuits"

Perhaps not, although there are those who call themselves "conservative" and advocate policies which have, as their perhaps unintended consequence, the same effects.

And some "conservatives" (the "compassionate" kind to be exact) want to change words and data around so that it might look like they aren't doing so.

Perhaps not, although there are those who call themselves "conservative" and advocate policies which have, as their perhaps unintended consequence, the same effects.
What policies which have, unintened or intended the effect of removing all safety regulations, or clearcutting anything out of existance?

Re: Isanyonehome

Most of the points you raised were addressed by the link I provided. Others I will address.

1) In his original study(which I believed caused him to lose his CDC funding) Kellerman originally determined that guns put a person at a 43-1 times more risk. I hope you can grasp where Dr. Kellerman is coming from based upon this.

No researcher is without bias, but unless you can find where this influenced his methods, it is irrelevant.

2) just by skimming this article, you see that renting vs owning your residence puts you at 4.4 times higher risk of being murdered while a gun in the house is 2.7 times. Illicit drug use is 5.7 higher.

. . .
So?
I never claimed that being poor or using drugs weren't risk factors, just that gun ownership is also a risk factor.

3) for self defense purposes, it is VERY VERY rare that a shot is even(something like 8% of cases). In less than 1% of the cases is anyone KILLED(killed is all Kellerman looked at)

From the page linked:
It is simply untrue that researchers cannot measure the nonfatal protective benefits of firearms, or that Kellermann's survey failed to detect such a benefit. If firearms deter, scare away or wound intruders, then the murder victimization rate of gun owners should be lower than non-gun owners. The absence of a gun in the home would have been recognized as a murder risk, rather than the presence of a gun.

Kellermann's case-control method was ideally suited to detect such benefits, if they existed. For example, suppose that guns save 100,000 lives a year, through nonfatal means. Assuming a perfect protection rate, we would see no homicides in households with guns, and 100,000 in households without them. A case-control survey would find the risk associated with guns to be 0.0 -- a perfect benefit. But suppose (more realistically) that guns protect their owners only half the time. There might then be, say, 100,000 homicides in homes with guns and 200,000 in homes without them. A researcher using the case-control method would find that 33 percent of the cases and 50 percent of the controls owned guns, for an odds ratio of .50. Being less than 1, that's a very strong benefit.

Of course, Kellermann's survey found quite the opposite -- a risk 2.7 times greater.

4) In the US, guns are the favorite method of killing. Just as they are the favorite method of suicide. It doesnt mean that the killing or the suicide would not have happened without the gun. So when you look at households with a homicide(like Kellerman did) you are going to find more guns present.

No, the 2.7 statistic clearly means that the killing or suicide is less likely to happen without the gun. That's the point of the study.
See refutation points 6 and 7 of the linked article for further analysis.

5) He didnt determine whether the gun used in the killing was the same gun owned in the household. E.G. if you own a gun(which is in your bedroom) and someone walks in and shoots you in the livingroom, Kellerman determines that your gun(the one still in the bedroom) has increased your risk of getting shot.

Again, from the linked page:
True, the study doesn't say, but the study's findings make it logically impossible for a significant number of these guns to have been brought in from the outside. The study found that keeping a gun in the house raised the chances of gun homicide only, not any other kind of homicide. It also found that it raised the chances of being killed by a family member or intimate acquaintance, not a stranger or non-intimate acquaintance. We can therefore eliminate the possibility that owning a gun raises the risk of a stranger breaking in (and then only with a gun!). The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house"). That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible. It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well. The only plausible conclusion is that the vast majority of the guns used for homicide were the ones kept in the house.

Pro-gun advocates might try a different tack. If an angry spouse has a gun, the other might seek protection by buying a gun also. However, this strategy had to fail for the survey to find a correlation between gun ownership and homicide. This does nothing to rescue the pro-gunner's point that guns protect their owners.

No they tend to use up the "profitable" trees and cry about the park laws and environmental laws that cause them too loose jobs. You don't have to clear cut a forrest to kill it. A tree falling over/dying and what not is also part of the cycle that helps keep a forrest alive.

As to the safety laws. They tend to want the reduced as they obviously impede business. The battle cry you often hear is "trail lawyers and friviolous lawsuits"

There just needs to be a ballance with the cutting, that's all. Trees naturally fall, sure, but they do so far less regularly than they are cut down. The ballance is delicate, and we just need to make sure that industry isn't destroying more than it creates. (Mudslides are one example... too many cut trees means less living root structure to support the earth.)

No they tend to use of the "profitable" trees and cry about the park laws and environmental laws that cause them too loose jobs. You don't have to clear cut a forrest to kill it. Just remove all the elder trees and it's gone.
How is removing all the elder trees killing a forrest? And what about the reforrestation projects where logging companies plant more trees than they cut?

As to the safety laws. They tend to want the reduced as they obviously impede business. The battle cry you often hear is "trail lawyers and friviolous lawsuits"
Trial lawyers and friviolous lawsuits... as in Edwards medical malpractice lawsuits for cerebral palsy?

BOWLER'S LAWSUIT IS A REAL TURKEY
A woman sued a bowling alley claiming she slipped and fell on an icy pothole which resulted in a disc herniation. She claimed no previous back problems, but her medical records showed numerous lower back problems over the past 10 years, and she was diagnosed with lumbar radiculitis the previous year. Bowling alley league records proved that she completed the remaining 14 WEEKS of the season after the alleged fall. In addition, a meteorologist testified that weather conditions for that day could not have formed ice. A jury determined that the bowling alley was not at fault.
PASSENGER ON CITY BUS TRIES TO
CASH IN AFTER MINOR ACCIDENT
In Detroit, a passenger on a city bus sued when the bus was rear-ended by a van, causing only a cracked taillight and split hose. The woman claimed she was thrown about the bus and injured. However, the bus driver testified that the air brakes where on and that the passengers boarding the bus did not move at the time of the collision. A Wayne County Circuit Court jury found no injury.
SWINGSET MANUFACTURER SUED
AFTER 20-YEAR OLD SWING BREAKS
A six year-old plaintiff was awarded nothing from an Oakland County jury for his lawsuit against a swing manufacturer that he alleged had a faulty design. The child allegedly fell off a swing at a public park because the seat was wobbly and loose. However the manufacturer testified that the swing was over twenty years old and that it had been altered, in particular the lock washers that kept the seat stable were missing.
HOMEOWNERS SUED BY CLEANING LADY WHO MISTAKES FIRECRACKER FOR A CANDLE
A woman from Grand Haven, Michigan filed a lawsuit for more than $25,000 after she was injured by a firecracker she took from a condominium that she had cleaned. While dining later with friends at a restaurant, the woman lit the firecracker claiming that she mistakenly thought it was a decorative candle. The explosion resulted in severe injuries to the woman. She sued the owners of the condo for leaving the firecracker behind without a warning on it. The condo owners said that they had placed the device, which looks like a "huge firecracker," in a cupboard to keep it away from the children after someone left it at their house after a party.
HOMEOWNER SUES SAYING:
"THIS DUST IS TRESPASSING!"
A Michigan couple sued the owners of a nearby business claiming that dust, noise and vibrations invaded their property and therefore were trespassing. A jury actually found in their favor, but a Court of Appeals panel overturned the jury's verdict. The Appeals court stated that noise, vibrations and dust are intangible objects and can not be considered as trespassers.

Yea, no frivolity there :rolleyes:

There just needs to be a ballance with the cutting, that's all. Trees naturally fall, sure, but they do so far less regularly than they are cut down. The ballance is delicate, and we just need to make sure that industry isn't destroying more than it creates. (Mudslides are one example... too many cut trees means less living root structure to support the earth.)

There is also the forest cycle to think of. There are completely different trees in place 100 years after a forest starts as compared to 5, or even 50. People love to think that just because lumber companies generally plant more trees, that everything is fine. No one ever thinks about the fact that they are changing the entire forest by planting different types of trees. And they can't plant the same type, as the forest needs beginning stages before it can begin growing oaks or maples, etc.

How is removing all the elder trees killing a forrest? And what about the reforrestation projects where logging companies plant more trees than they cut?

They alter the entire forest by planting different types of trees than the ones they cut, usually. Pretty much all lumber companies in the southeast, for instance, plant pine trees. However, a forest that is left alone for a couple 100 years here will be growing oaks, maples, or elms (depending on the diseases, etc.)

Trial lawyers and friviolous lawsuits... as in Edwards medical malpractice lawsuits for cerebral palsy?

Of course, that is the only one I have heard of from him that *might* be frivolous. He also had one where a little girl had the majority of her intestines pulled out through her anus due to a problem with a pool pump that the company *knew* about and *lied* about. The cerebral palsy case is complicated. The doctor definitely was inattentive, but there is no direct evidence that his inattentiveness caused CP.

Yea, no frivolity there :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone claimed that there are no frivolous lawsuits. Besides, all of the ones you just cited were either ruled against or overturned - which is what we would want to see happen. The only other thing I would like to see is that the people who bring frivolous lawsuits up be punished.

They alter the entire forest by planting different types of trees than the ones they cut, usually. Pretty much all lumber companies in the southeast, for instance, plant pine trees. However, a forest that is left alone for a couple 100 years here will be growing oaks, maples, or elms (depending on the diseases, etc.)

Of course, that is the only one I have heard of from him that *might* be frivolous. He also had one where a little girl had the majority of her intestines pulled out through her anus due to a problem with a pool pump that the company *knew* about and *lied* about. The cerebral palsy case is complicated. The doctor definitely was inattentive, but there is no direct evidence that his inattentiveness caused CP.

I don't think anyone claimed that there are no frivolous lawsuits. Besides, all of the ones you just cited were either ruled against or overturned - which is what we would want to see happen. The only other thing I would like to see is that the people who bring frivolous lawsuits up be punished.
But, without unscrupulous lawyers none of those lawsuits would even have made it to trial.
As for the CP, the decision was made without any direct evidence against the defendant, nor any direct evidence linking CP to any human cause, or any cause at all.

Anyone remember that PPA scare a while back? Manufacturers of cough medicines that contained PPA were sued and rapidly began pulling PPA containing products from shelves. I even remember one advertisment where the drugist told the "concerned" family that the particular brand was PPA free.
There was absolutely no clinical evidence linking PPA to strokes. There was only one study that came up with any statisitcal evidence. And that survey didnt even take into concideration age/smoking habits/general health as a factor for the possible increase in stroke probability.

Do not even get me started on the DDT ban.

How is removing all the elder trees killing a forrest? And what about the reforrestation projects where logging companies plant more trees than they cut?


Well, for one thing, removing ALL the elder trees is seriously dammaging to the forest. The old trees are where all the settlements are (as in animals, spores, general forest and plantlife stuff... simbiotic relationships etc.). Two, older trees have larger root structures. Larger root systems provide more support for soft earth. As a tree dies, is felled, whatever you like, the roots DO die after a period of time. When they lose their structure, the ground starts to settle. This can cause HUGE mudslides that result in massive property damage costs.

Do not even get me started on the DDT ban.

The others have covered the problems with forests rather well.

Sure there are frivolous lawsuits. Never said there were not. However, many think that any lawsuit against a company is wrong. Any lawsuit against a doctor is wrong....

The people that file frivolous law suits should get fined and the lawyers punished. Frivolous as in the coffee lady....

The only problem is that who defines frivilous? Sure we all agree on the coffee lady but what do we do when we get a guy that thinks any lawsuit against a company is frivilous and starts punishing people when the company should get nailed?

Ok now I am curious. What about DDT?

Manufacturers of cough medicines that contained PPA were sued and rapidly began pulling PPA containing products from shelves. I even remember one advertisment where the drugist told the "concerned" family that the particular brand was PPA free.


Well I don't know about then but speaking of the now. People have kind of a false understanding of the FDA. They view it as the protector of the people but it's rules are rather limiting.

I listened to a radio show a couple weeks ago and a guy was explaining that that to bring a drug to market, there is only a (forgot the day amount) test against a placebo on what is promised. If there are side affects, a company can delcare them trade secrets and they don't have to be reveiled unless they are life threatening(ie liver damage).

The only time the FDA will make a ruling is if taking a drug will make people fall over dead.....

Damn. Can't remember the weight loss drug that had that substance that causes heart damage!!!! A "frivolus" lawsuit broght that out. How did that escape the fda?....

The others have covered the problems with forests rather well.

Sure there are frivolous lawsuits. Never said there were not. However, many think that any lawsuit against a company is wrong. Any lawsuit against a doctor is wrong....

The people that file frivolous law suits should get fined and the lawyers punished. Frivolous as in the coffee lady....

The only problem is that who defines frivilous? Sure we all agree on the coffee lady but what do we do when we get a guy that thinks any lawsuit against a company is frivilous and starts punishing people when the company should get nailed?

Ok now I am curious. What about DDT?
No, no.. I said don't get me started. Talk about junk science....

Companies should get their collective genitals nailed to the wall if they, through negligent practices cause harm to people through common sense use of their products.
It's when people use products with a complete disregard to common sense get injured, and then sue the manufacturer that they become frivilous.
Someone uses a clothes iron on the clothes that they are wearing, then think it's Black and Decker's fault they got burned.
It's when a fishing tackle manufacture is forced to put a warning label on it's products that says "harmful when swallowed".
It's when a smoke alarm manufacturer has to put the label "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire."

It's when people use products with a complete disregard to common sense get injured, and then sue the manufacturer that they become frivilous.
Someone uses a clothes iron on the clothes that they are wearing, then think it's Black and Decker's fault they got burned.
It's when a fishing tackle manufacture is forced to put a warning label on it's products that says "harmful when swallowed".
It's when a smoke alarm manufacturer has to put the label "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire."
my hairdrier carries the warning "Do not attempt to dry hair while showering."

my hairdrier carries the warning "Do not attempt to dry hair while showering."

As does mine... I wonder... electrocution aside, how efficient is it to dry one's hair IN THE SHOWER? Good grief.

my hairdrier carries the warning "Do not attempt to dry hair while showering."
Case in point....
Warning labels of this sort is the result that someone, somewhere tried doing something that goes completely against common sense, got hurt.. then sued the company because they didnt "warn" them against their own stupidity.

But, without unscrupulous lawyers none of those lawsuits would even have made it to trial.

True. But find me a single profession that doesn't have unscrupulous members. Hell, even the clergy has those.

As for the CP, the decision was made without any direct evidence against the defendant, nor any direct evidence linking CP to any human cause, or any cause at all.

Not sure why you're trying to argue here - that's exactly what I said. CP is almost always present before birth and there was no definitive evidence that the doctor's neglect caused CP. However, there was plenty of evidence of the doctor's neglect - and that is what emotionally pushed the case.


Frivolous as in the coffee lady....

You consider asking for a company that purposely kept their coffee 50 degrees hotter than anyone else so that it could cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds and had already had 700 complaints and/or settlements about it to pay for the skin grafts that you require on your thighs and genitals frivolous? Interesting viewpoint.

Re: Isanyonehome

Most of the points you raised were addressed by the link I provided. Others I will address.


No researcher is without bias, but unless you can find where this influenced his methods, it is irrelevant.


Yes I can, but I am not going to go into it because this is off topic.

look here for a breakdown of his original study

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html



. . .
So?
I never claimed that being poor or using drugs weren't risk factors, just that gun ownership is also a risk factor.

From the page linked:

No, the 2.7 statistic clearly means that the killing or suicide is less likely to happen without the gun. That's the point of the study.
See refutation points 6 and 7 of the linked article for further analysis.

Again, from the linked page:

Im not go into this in this thread. IF you read article I posted you will see why Kellermans work has been discredited. Not the least of which is because he refused to submit his data for peer review and his failure to respond to issue brought up by other after he finally released his data.

here is the link again. If you agree then great, if not then I am sure you will bring it up in a gun control thread.

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

True. But find me a single profession that doesn't have unscrupulous members. Hell, even the clergy has those.
Ah, but the other professions do not contribute to the situation being discussed... i.e. frivilous lawsuits.

Not sure why you're trying to argue here - that's exactly what I said. CP is almost always present before birth and there was no definitive evidence that the doctor's neglect caused CP. However, there was plenty of evidence of the doctor's neglect - and that is what emotionally pushed the case.
Ok, I know this is rare, and I can understand why you were a bit confused by my post. I was agreeing with you............................ quick, someone get some water.. Dempublicents fainted. ;)

You consider asking for a company that purposely kept their coffee 50 degrees hotter than anyone else so that it could cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds and had already had 700 complaints and/or settlements about it to pay for the skin grafts that you require on your thighs and genitals frivolous? Interesting viewpoint.
The coffee was 50 degrees hotter than other business doing the same thing. Because McDonalds customers suggested that one thing they would like to see was that their coffee would stay hot until they get to work, or where ever their destination.
The frivolity here is because I, and many others, feel it was the woman's own fault that she spilled the coffee on her thighs and genitals. No one told her to hold the cup between her legs. It's called personal responsibility. If I am using a chainsaw for some reason, and because Im trying to use it one handed while holding a log with one hand, and the saw falls and cuts off my foot... it's my own damn fault. Im not going to sue Stihl because they didnt install some guard or safety device to prevent me from being stupid with it.

Ah, but the other professions do not contribute to the situation being discussed... i.e. frivilous lawsuits.

No, but the fact that all professions have unsrcupulous members, but not all members of any profession are unscrupulous does. All lawyers are not willing to bring such lawsuits up - so all lawyers are not responsible for the downfall of society or whatever.

The coffee was 50 degrees hotter than other business doing the same thing. Because McDonalds customers suggested that one thing they would like to see was that their coffee would stay hot until they get to work, or where ever their destination.

Actually, McDonalds own records show that it was hotter so that it would retain its taste longer *in the pot* and they would save money by not having to brew more.

In court McDonald's claimed that most people took their coffee to another destination, although their own market research showed that most people began to drink it immediately.

The frivolity here is because I, and many others, feel it was the woman's own fault that she spilled the coffee on her thighs and genitals. No one told her to hold the cup between her legs.

So, if she had had skin grafts on her lips instead - that would be ok? What about just on her hands? Normal people get coffee, open it up and pour in sugar/cream/etc. (unless they drink it black), put the top back on, and drink it. That is the normal use for coffee. McDonald's had a product that was unsafe for normal use - and had already had over 700 complaints.

It's called personal responsibility. If I am using a chainsaw for some reason, and because Im trying to use it one handed while holding a log with one hand, and the saw falls and cuts off my foot... it's my own damn fault. Im not going to sue Stihl because they didnt install some guard or safety device to prevent me from being stupid with it.

Let me demonstrate a closer example:

Suppose a company made a chain saw that was only meant to cut oak trees. Cutting any other type of wood could end up in you cutting yourself because the chain saw wasn't meant for that. Most people use chain saws to cut all types of wood, however. Now, if that company didn't put on their product "Only for cutting oak trees. Do not use on anything else" and you cut your foot off, then you would have a valid suit.

McDonald's knew that most people drink the coffee they buy right away. They knew that their coffee could (and already had - in many cases) burnt people. They say that their coffee was that hot because it was meant to be taken elsewhere to drink - well, they should have told people not to drink it right away, since that is the normal use for coffee.

Wow, you guys are going off of the coffee thing? Here's something a friend of mine posted somewhere else:



ATLA fact sheet on the Leibeck vs. MacDonald's case (http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)
Some highlights:
* Stella Liebeck suffered 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, requiring 8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and debibment.
* She first tried to settle with McDonalds for ONLY the $20,000 that the medical treatment costs. McDonalds refused, a fact I don't really understand since
* McDonalds had dealt with over 700 coffee burn claims 1982 and 1992, some involving burns similar to Liebeck's.
* Coffee served at home is generally 135-140F, at most restaurants is around 155F. McDonalds keeps theirs at 180 to 190F.
* Liquids at 180F will cause a 3rd degree burn in 2-7 seconds. Burn severity decreases exponentially as temperature decreases. At 155F, serious injury is not caused.
* The compensation amount awarded to Leibeck was $200,000 dollars, which was decreased to $160,000 because the jury found that Liebeck was 20% responsible for the burns. It was she who spilled the coffee.
* The rest of the award was punative, because it was found that McDonalds had acted recklessly, callously and willfully. They had known for quite some time that their coffee had caused serious injuries. Their coffee was kept far in excess of the norm, and far in excess of what consumers have any reason to expect. (This wasn't just ready-to-drink hot coffee. This was scalding-hot-will-do-nasty-damage-to-your-mouth-and-throat hot coffee.)

Why is MacDonald's coffee so damn hot? I suspect it involves the words every engineer hates to hear. "We already bought the tooling." McD's claims that it's excessively hot because most customers buy it on their way to work, and don't drink it until they get there. Their OWN market research shows that's not the case; most customers buy it to drink immediately. From my own fact-versus-management experience, though, I wouldn't be surprised to learn the equipment for super-hot coffee was purchased across the board before the market research was in, on management's assumption that they already knew what it was going to tell them.

On my soapbox a little here, when you hear a politician talk about tort reform, WORRY. What that really means is decreased customer rights. A VAST majority of truly frivolous lawsuits involve corporations trying to jab each other (Haagen Daus suing Fruzengladia, claiming they have trademark on ice cream with a Scandenavian name), or are tossed out. (For instance, both cases of some twit trying to sue McDonald's for making them fat were tossed out.) Truly frivilous lawsuits by normal citizens are a trivial amount of taxpayer court costs. The biggest drain on taxpayer resources is the above corporations, and to a far lesser extent jail prisoners with nothing better to do (and a decent number of them are legit, too).
But where to politicians always target? Normal citizens. The ones who frivilously aren't the problem, but whose legitimate complaints sure are a pain to business. "Tort reform" means that if a truly dangerous product hurts you, you'll have less ability to get damages.

On my soapbox a little here, when you hear a politician talk about tort reform, WORRY. What that really means is decreased customer rights. A VAST majority of truly frivolous lawsuits involve corporations trying to jab each other (Haagen Daus suing Fruzengladia, claiming they have trademark on ice cream with a Scandenavian name), or are tossed out. (For instance, both cases of some twit trying to sue McDonald's for making them fat were tossed out.) Truly frivilous lawsuits by normal citizens are a trivial amount of taxpayer court costs. The biggest drain on taxpayer resources is the above corporations, and to a far lesser extent jail prisoners with nothing better to do (and a decent number of them are legit, too).
But where to politicians always target? Normal citizens. The ones who frivilously aren't the problem, but whose legitimate complaints sure are a pain to business. "Tort reform" means that if a truly dangerous product hurts you, you'll have less ability to get damages.

I have to disagree with this last part. Tort reform is important - it just needs to be done right. Currently, in the malpractice area, doctors are held liable for millions of dollars (that they don't have) for procedures that are inherently dangerous (even if they do everything right) and which the jury is pretty much hopeless to understand. These doctors only get paid for said procedures in the $100's. Patients who get pissed off because a known risk occurs to them sue - juries don't understand medicine - and people who weren't even really hurt get large sums of money.

When it comes down to it, I think what we really need is a type of lifetime judgement. If a doctor causes injuries through neglect that cause a patient to need lifetime care - then said doctor (or hospital, etc. that cover them) should be responsible for paying for that care. Right now, we try and guestimate how much a person will need, when we could just make it possible for a jury to hand down a verdict that results in the defendent paying for medical costs for the rest of that person's life. At that point, million dollar settlements that don't help anyone won't even be necessary.

You consider asking for a company that purposely kept their coffee 50 degrees hotter than anyone else so that it could cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds and had already had 700 complaints and/or settlements about it to pay for the skin grafts that you require on your thighs and genitals frivolous? Interesting viewpoint.

Failure to respond sure.

But is it the companies fault that she drove around with a hot beverage in a styrofoam cup at her crotch?

Maybe it's a guy thing but for me hot liquids in a flimsy cup don't go near there! ;)

No, no.. I said don't get me started. Talk about junk science....

Companies should get their collective genitals nailed to the wall if they, through negligent practices cause harm to people through common sense use of their products.
It's when people use products with a complete disregard to common sense get injured, and then sue the manufacturer that they become frivilous.
Someone uses a clothes iron on the clothes that they are wearing, then think it's Black and Decker's fault they got burned.
It's when a fishing tackle manufacture is forced to put a warning label on it's products that says "harmful when swallowed".
It's when a smoke alarm manufacturer has to put the label "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire."

Well if you are refering to DDT, I do remember seeing old TV spots where they were spraying it and having kids run through the clouds to show it is ok and it won't hurt you. In fact they had a whole documentary about it being safe.

DDT boy for some strange reason won't subject his grandkids to playing with it. Wonder why?

But is it the companies fault that she drove around with a hot beverage in a styrofoam cup at her crotch?

Again I ask, would it have been ok if she had burned her lips off instead then? If she had been sitting at a table and spilled that coffee, it still likely would have caused third degree burns.

Also, she wasn't driving around. The woman was a passenger in the car and had specifically asked the driver to stop so that she could add cream and sugar to the coffee.

When it comes down to it, I think what we really need is a type of lifetime judgement. If a doctor causes injuries through neglect that cause a patient to need lifetime care - then said doctor (or hospital, etc. that cover them) should be responsible for paying for that care. Right now, we try and guestimate how much a person will need, when we could just make it possible for a jury to hand down a verdict that results in the defendent paying for medical costs for the rest of that person's life. At that point, million dollar settlements that don't help anyone won't even be necessary.

The huge verdicts are independant of medical costs. No one who is talking about malpractice reform is talking about reducing payments for medical care for the lifetime of the injured party. Even the lost "earning ability" of the person(while expensive, is not such a big deal). The problem is with the "pain and suffering" part of the judgements. These costs are astronomical.

Its more than just that though. Its all the legal fees spent by insurance companies defending junk lawsuits that eventually get thrown out. The Plaintifs lawyer knows that even for a junk lawsuit, it is cheaper for the insurance company to throw $10,000-$20,000 to the accuser even if they have no case.

Also please take into account all the unnecesary medical procedures and tests that are done to forestal any future claim. Thats where the medical system gets really bogged down. A doctor knows what wrong with the patient, he has seen it a million times before but he still has to perform all these expensive tests(which insurance and the govt pays for) just so some lawyer doent make some claim somewhere down the line. That is a big reason why medical insurance is so expensive in the USA.

The huge verdicts are independant of medical costs. No one who is talking about malpractice reform is talking about reducing payments for medical care for the lifetime of the injured party. Even the lost "earning ability" of the person(while expensive, is not such a big deal). The problem is with the "pain and suffering" part of the judgements. These costs are astronomical.

Having spoken to a personal injury lawyer - much of the reason for those high pain and suffering requests is to pay for lifetime care. They can estimate all they want, but at present it is still a one-time judgement. If we could simply give a judgement for lifetime care, the person would not have to throw a number out there and simply hope that it is enough. At that point, we could make the company/malpractice insurer/etc responsible to that person *for the rest of their lives.*

We also need to reeducate the public, of course. Million dollar settlements against huge corporations do make some sort of sense. Basically, something in the hundred thousands means nothing to them - and will do nothing to stop them from continuing dangerous actions. Doctors, on the other hand, do not have millions of dollars (although the general public usually thinks they do). They also do not (generally) willfully harm their patients. They are human and make mistakes, but they should not be liable for millions of dollars just because someone has a slightly more visible scar from a procedure that the doctor only received a few hundred dollars for in the first place.

Its more than just that though. Its all the legal fees spent by insurance companies defending junk lawsuits that eventually get thrown out. The Plaintifs lawyer knows that even for a junk lawsuit, it is cheaper for the insurance company to throw $10,000-$20,000 to the accuser even if they have no case.

You're preaching to the choir. Of course, if we went with the "pay for lifetime medical costs" idea - there would be less of these. After all, the patient would have to demonstrate that the medical costs were necessary due to the malpractice- and very few doctors are going to sign off on that.

Also please take into account all the unnecesary medical procedures and tests that are done to forestal any future claim. Thats where the medical system gets really bogged down. A doctor knows what wrong with the patient, he has seen it a million times before but he still has to perform all these expensive tests(which insurance and the govt pays for) just so some lawyer doent make some claim somewhere down the line. That is a big reason why medical insurance is so expensive in the USA.

I don't really know why you are arguing with me here. I *know* that there are problems in the system. I am just trying to propose a fix that wouldn't screw anybody over.

Of course, many of those tests are not even covered by medical insurance - so it has little to do with said cost.

I don't really know why you are arguing with me here. I *know* that there are problems in the system. I am just trying to propose a fix that wouldn't screw anybody over.

Of course, many of those tests are not even covered by medical insurance - so it has little to do with said cost.

I am not actually arguing with you. Except maybe about the which part of a malpractice settlement goes where. I havent specifically done any research on this, but both my parents are doctors and I run a MRI facility. Ill ask around during the work week. Are lawyers working on a contingency basis allowed to take a percentage of medical treatment cost judgements? If they are not allowed, then maybe thats why the lawyer you met was more interested in the pain and suffering part of the judgement. Just guessing here, but I will find out this week.

I dont think the life time medical costs thing would work though. in the case of doctors, what happens when he dies/retires. The patiet would stop receiving medical care. In the case of an insurance company, it would just encourage a company to set up various subsidiaries and declare bankcruptcy whenever a particular subsidiary built up enough lifetime settlements.

Well if you are refering to DDT, I do remember seeing old TV spots where they were spraying it and having kids run through the clouds to show it is ok and it won't hurt you. In fact they had a whole documentary about it being safe.

DDT boy for some strange reason won't subject his grandkids to playing with it. Wonder why?
The DDT ban was enacted by the EPA even though a federal judge admitted that no evidence was presented about the harmful affects of DDT.
It was all junk science and it has directly led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people in the world because as a result of malaria.

Having spoken to a personal injury lawyer - much of the reason for those high pain and suffering requests is to pay for lifetime care. They can estimate all they want, but at present it is still a one-time judgement. If we could simply give a judgement for lifetime care, the person would not have to throw a number out there and simply hope that it is enough. At that point, we could make the company/malpractice insurer/etc responsible to that person *for the rest of their lives.*

Coming from a personal injury lawyer I would expect such a statement. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the settlement or payment goes to the lawyer, not the plaintiff.

The DDT ban was enacted by the EPA even though a federal judge admitted that no evidence was presented about the harmful affects of DDT.
It was all junk science and it has directly led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people in the world because as a result of malaria.

make that MILLIONS(mostly children) dead because of a lack of DDT.

EDIT: Why an American ban on DDT affects South America and India is beyond me, but thats what the discovery channel was insinuating. Maybe its a UN worldwide ban? Somebody know anything about this?

edit: an article I picked up spending 2 seconds for a google search
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4460

make that MILLIONS(mostly children) dead because of a lack of DDT.

EDIT: Why an American ban on DDT affects South America and India is beyond me, but thats what the discovery channel was insinuating. Maybe its a UN worldwide ban? Somebody know anything about this?

edit: an article I picked up spending 2 seconds for a google search
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4460
My mistake... I didnt want to over exagerate, since I chastise people who do that.
The actual number is 87,000,000 since the US banned it in 1972. A more unfortunate componant of that statistic is that the WHO estimates that 78,000,000 of those deaths were pregnant women or children under the age of 5.

As for the countries banning DDT:Control actions to ban or severely restrict DDT have been taken by over 38 countries, that began in the early 1970s. In at least 26 countries, DDT is completely banned, and in 12 others it is severely restricted. In these latter cases, it is permitted for use by government agencies for special programmes, usually involving vector control programmes(43).

Total ban
Canada 1985
Chile 1985
Cuba 1970
Liechtenstein 1986
Korea 1986
Poland 1976
Singapore 1984
Switzerland 1986

* Soviet production and use continued secretly after the 1970 ban. In some cases, DDT production even increased(44).
** DDT was banned in the US in 1972, except for public health emergencies. Small amounts were used until 1980(45). In 1991, the US exported 92 tons of DDT(46).

A total of 120 countries are concidering banning DDT completely by 2007.

All of this because EPA head William Ruckelshaus arbitrarily and capriciously banned DDT in 1972. The other countries have used the EPA reasoning to enact their own.

I'm not even going to get started on the pricks who wrote this. All I will say is that conservatives surely are agressive. Why? They control all the talk-back shows, a hell of a lot of the media and they always get someone they want in power. Why are you so agressive towards us small 'l' liberals? Could it be that common sense is rising up and you are afraid that one day your ignorance will not reign supreme?

I'm not even going to get started on the pricks who wrote this. All I will say is that conservatives surely are agressive. Why? They control all the talk-back shows, a hell of a lot of the media and they always get someone they want in power. Why are you so agressive towards us small 'l' liberals? Could it be that common sense is rising up and you are afraid that one day your ignorance will not reign supreme?
lol....
Im only aggressive against proponants of misinformation.
Like gun control, or junk science.
As for common sense... liberals (small l or big L) certainly do NOT have a monopoly of that.

Haha, ya, I would have to imagine that accidental deaths by guns aren't really all that high. Considering once they intentionally kill someone, they are no longer law-abiding citizens.


Anyhow, whatever happened to trusting and empowering people to run their own lives? Seems neither side is really all that interested in it, considering liberals want to tax the heck out of you and provide you substandard services in exchange (the idea of having a government job being associated with not really doing any work can be blamed largely on liberal fondness of bureaucracy), while 'compassionate' conservatives want to control your private lives in regards to sexuality, drugs, reproduction, as well as watching over you like a hawk in order to make sure you don't make a slight mistake (whereas they will toss you in jail for a mandatory minimum sentence).


Oh and nuclear weapons have really killed one heck of a lot of people if you think about it. If we had any means to actually measure it, I'm sure a relationship would be found between the abnormally high number of cancer victims and the hundreds of nuclear tests done in the past century. For indictation of nuclear tests and accidents leading to cancer and similar problems, consider the population downwind of Chernobyl as well as the people who have been dying over the last few decades who lived downwind of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally I count ending lives short by a few years and making living less enjoyable to be equal to killing people only to a slightly lesser degree.

Let's not forget that it was the bunch of gun-crazy maniacs that dropped the bombs...Not "red" China.

I'm not even going to get started on the pricks who wrote this. All I will say is that conservatives surely are agressive. Why? They control all the talk-back shows, a hell of a lot of the media and they always get someone they want in power. Why are you so agressive towards us small 'l' liberals? Could it be that common sense is rising up and you are afraid that one day your ignorance will not reign supreme?

Sorry, I misplaced my red ryder decoder ring, could you please translate this into something comprehensible?

Sorry, I misplaced my red ryder decoder ring, could you please translate this into something comprehensible?

DRINKYOUROVALTINE

The others have covered the problems with forests rather well.

Sure there are frivolous lawsuits. Never said there were not. However, many think that any lawsuit against a company is wrong. Any lawsuit against a doctor is wrong....

The people that file frivolous law suits should get fined and the lawyers punished. Frivolous as in the coffee lady....

The only problem is that who defines frivilous? Sure we all agree on the coffee lady but what do we do when we get a guy that thinks any lawsuit against a company is frivilous and starts punishing people when the company should get nailed?

Ok now I am curious. What about DDT?

We all agree on the coffee lady? Pray, tell me, what is my opinion? :rolleyes:

Failure to respond sure.

But is it the companies fault that she drove around with a hot beverage in a styrofoam cup at her crotch?

Maybe it's a guy thing but for me hot liquids in a flimsy cup don't go near there! ;)

She was not driving around, she was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. And what if she had been sitting at a table inside of McD's, and had spilled it on the table and it had run into her lap?

Newsflash: people spill their drinks sometimes. It is a common and easily anticipated accident, never to be avoided entirely no matter how much care the customer applies. And, she was found to be 20% at fault.

Also, the aformentioned market research showed that the majority of coffee drinkers drank their coffee in their cars, especially when they bought it at the drive-thru.

What if it had been 270F? Would that have been her fault too?

Coming from a personal injury lawyer I would expect such a statement. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the settlement or payment goes to the lawyer, not the plaintiff.

Link, please.

I ask all people to go form and actual imformed opion before they bash on others or even decide for themselves. This country would be better off if people voted because they understood. Not because they think they understand due to stereotypes attatched to the D or the R next to a candidates name. If you do research into the actual politics and policies and compare them to your own beliefs most people will be all over the map and disregarf party. But unfortunatley there are to may Sheople (sheep people) in this nation for this to happen. And for my saying this the liberals will call me Ultra conserivitave, the conservatives ultraliberal, the extremists either way a nazi, the nazi a comi and the intelligent a kindred spirit.

Coming from a personal injury lawyer I would expect such a statement. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the settlement or payment goes to the lawyer, not the plaintiff.

The majority of the settlement? You are kidding right? Any lawyer who tried to take more than 10% or so would get smacked down for unconscionable contract.

Besides, the girl I talked to the most wasn't even a lawyer - she was a paralegal for a personal injury lawyer. She saw these people's files and where the money went.

The majority of the settlement? You are kidding right? Any lawyer who tried to take more than 10% or so would get smacked down for unconscionable contract.

Besides, the girl I talked to the most wasn't even a lawyer - she was a paralegal for a personal injury lawyer. She saw these people's files and where the money went.

Actually a third is usually the top rate.

nice list, i also like the "liberal thought in America" one.

Well if you are refering to DDT, I do remember seeing old TV spots where they were spraying it and having kids run through the clouds to show it is ok and it won't hurt you. In fact they had a whole documentary about it being safe.

DDT boy for some strange reason won't subject his grandkids to playing with it. Wonder why?
Um it is dangerous. Just peopple no short term dangers dfoesn't measn can't harm in future.
I've worked with Pesticides, got a license for it even, they don't always harm you right away.
The dangers existed. "junk science" pfft, next thing Republicans will deny Global warming. Even though Bush recently admitted it existed.

How could such an asinine post cause so much debate? There are a lot of defensive liberals and ignorant conservatives out there.

Um it is dangerous. Just peopple no short term dangers dfoesn't measn can't harm in future.
I've worked with Pesticides, got a license for it even, they don't always harm you right away.
The dangers existed. "junk science" pfft, next thing Republicans will deny Global warming. Even though Bush recently admitted it existed.
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm
In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”

I dont think the life time medical costs thing would work though. in the case of doctors, what happens when he dies/retires. The patiet would stop receiving medical care. In the case of an insurance company, it would just encourage a company to set up various subsidiaries and declare bankcruptcy whenever a particular subsidiary built up enough lifetime settlements.

In the case of medical malpractice, it would always be the malpractice companies paying. And as for them setting up various subsidaries, etc. - that type of problem is exactly why we need to reform regulation of the insurance companies as well as the legal processes.

http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm
In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”

Of course, it does shrink alligator (or crocodile, I forget which) penii to the point that they can't mate. Apparently, they left that out.

We all agree on the coffee lady? Pray, tell me, what is my opinion? :rolleyes:

You are a female right?

I wouldn't even begin to try.... ;)

She was not driving around, she was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. And what if she had been sitting at a table inside of McD's, and had spilled it on the table and it had run into her lap?

Newsflash: people spill their drinks sometimes. It is a common and easily anticipated accident, never to be avoided entirely no matter how much care the customer applies. And, she was found to be 20% at fault.

Also, the aformentioned market research showed that the majority of coffee drinkers drank their coffee in their cars, especially when they bought it at the drive-thru.

What if it had been 270F? Would that have been her fault too?

Otay. It was from memory I will grant the specifics....

However, the reason for the questions is that the McDs around where I lived used paper cups at the time. So assumptions were made. Grant you that one.

Finally, I am a coffee snob so you won't find McD's brand in my hand. ;)

I withdraw my comments.....

She was not driving around, she was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. And what if she had been sitting at a table inside of McD's, and had spilled it on the table and it had run into her lap?

Newsflash: people spill their drinks sometimes. It is a common and easily anticipated accident, never to be avoided entirely no matter how much care the customer applies. And, she was found to be 20% at fault.

Also, the aformentioned market research showed that the majority of coffee drinkers drank their coffee in their cars, especially when they bought it at the drive-thru.

What if it had been 270F? Would that have been her fault too?
I think what's being argued is the fact that the whole story leads one to believe that the woman was completely unaware that coffee is usually served hot.
Did the cup fail? Did the lid fail? Did she spill it on her self? Did she spill it as a result of being surprised by someone or something?
I know that the coffee I drink will be hot. I dont really care how hot it is... All I know is that I need to exorcise extra care than I would with water or soda.
Perhaps McDonalds should have had to pay for her medical care... I don't know, I wasn't on the jury.
Pain and suffering payments are a stupid idea. Tell me how your pain is lessened or your suffering is lessened by a multimillion dollar settlement? It's more of a punitive measure than to make the victim "whole".

I think what's being argued is the fact that the whole story leads one to believe that the woman was completely unaware that coffee is usually served hot.

No, she was unaware that McDonald's coffee was served much hotter than anyone elses's. So hot, in fact, that it could cause third degree burns in seconds. Normal coffee is hot, and it'll burn and hurt a little - but not that much. Nobody in their right mind would try to open a cup with coffee that could cause nearly instantaneous third degree burns until it had cooled, but there was no notice whatsoever that the coffee was that hot.

I know that the coffee I drink will be hot. I dont really care how hot it is... All I know is that I need to exorcise extra care than I would with water or soda.

Yes, but should it be so hot that contact with your skin causes third degree burns? Saying "I don't care how hot it is" is dangerous. Would you not care if someone handed you a coffee cup with coffee boiling out of it? Would you not care if someone told you it was a normal temperature and when you tried to drink it, you incurred third-degree burns?

Pain and suffering payments are a stupid idea. Tell me how your pain is lessened or your suffering is lessened by a multimillion dollar settlement? It's more of a punitive measure than to make the victim "whole".

I think it is based on the idea that the victim can never be given back what was taken from them, even if it was time spent suffering or in pain. Thus, we give them the best thing we can think of to improve their quality of life, money. And yes, multimillion dollar settlements are definitely more of a "punish the bad guy" idea than a true help to the victim. I'm not entirely against that, although I think that since such settlements are intended as punishment, they need to be scaled as to what constitutes an adequate punishment to the defendent, rather than how badly the victim was hurt. McDonald's could pay a huge settlement and never miss it, so a large settlement was necessary. ((Keep in mind that the woman originally tried to settle for medical costs only)).

Pain and suffering payments are a stupid idea. Tell me how your pain is lessened or your suffering is lessened by a multimillion dollar settlement? It's more of a punitive measure than to make the victim "whole".

Oh I don't know a couple million would make me forget about my coffee burns really fast. ;)

However, multimillions is the only thing a "rogue" company managment understands. So it is a punitive measure.

An organization deserves to be punished hard if bad things were brought to their attention and they refused for whatever reason to change it.

Why do companies seattle out of court most of the time. It's cheaper but more importantly to keep it from becoming an official record.

I knew a guy that sued Apple Computers on descrimination. He was a Mexican and he had a flawless documented work history. Apple tried out wait him(money wise) but they didn't look into his holdings. One of those sick wealthy bastards that choose to work. ;)

They offered to settle several times. He refused. Why? As he said. "These guys have been doing this for a long time and they won't change after me. I want a previous judgement for the next guy who decides to fight. Apple will get raped for not changing it's ways."

He won the case on it's 8 year.

You are a female right?

I wouldn't even begin to try.... ;)

No I'm male, so maybe you actually could conceive of what's in my mind... after all, I have a penis, and you seem to do your thinking with yours.

edit: I just saw your retraction, so... nah... the above may be mean but it's just so perfect! :cool:

I think what's being argued is the fact that the whole story leads one to believe that the woman was completely unaware that coffee is usually served hot.
Did the cup fail? Did the lid fail? Did she spill it on her self? Did she spill it as a result of being surprised by someone or something?
I know that the coffee I drink will be hot. I dont really care how hot it is... All I know is that I need to exorcise extra care than I would with water or soda.
Perhaps McDonalds should have had to pay for her medical care... I don't know, I wasn't on the jury.
Pain and suffering payments are a stupid idea. Tell me how your pain is lessened or your suffering is lessened by a multimillion dollar settlement? It's more of a punitive measure than to make the victim "whole".

As for your last question first: she didn't originally want to sue them and get punative damages/pain & suffering, she only wanted them to pay her medical bills. So your last paragraph is superfluous.

I use care when drinking beverages too, especially hot ones, but I have spilled freshly brewed coffee in my lap at home. Like I said, or tried to imply, over a person's lifetime, such a thing will all but inevitably happen at least once.

But here's the rub: 140-150F coffee that I make at home does not cause third degree burns. It just doesn't - it's an anatomical FACT. And like I asked: what if it had been 270F? What if it had done fifth degree burns? Would she still be just a whiney old clutz who owned all the fault of her injury?

And to repeat: all she had asked for was medical bills.

No, she was unaware that McDonald's coffee was served much hotter than anyone elses's. So hot, in fact, that it could cause third degree burns in seconds. Normal coffee is hot, and it'll burn and hurt a little - but not that much. Nobody in their right mind would try to open a cup with coffee that could cause nearly instantaneous third degree burns until it had cooled, but there was no notice whatsoever that the coffee was that hot.
That's my contention... she wasn't in her right mind to open up the coffee until it had cooled. Coffee is hot, it burns. Whether 140 or 190 it's still hot. Any person in their right mind would accept this fact and take all due precautions not to allow it to contact their skins. Are you saying that since it's hot and it'll burn and hurt a little, she should then be allowed to be careless?
Yes, but should it be so hot that contact with your skin causes third degree burns? Saying "I don't care how hot it is" is dangerous. Would you not care if someone handed you a coffee cup with coffee boiling out of it? Would you not care if someone told you it was a normal temperature and when you tried to drink it, you incurred third-degree burns?
Unfortunately peoples skin are different. Some wouldn't have recieved 3rd degree burns. Some would receive 3rd degree burns at lower temperatures. It does not preclude her from exorcising due dilligence to prevent spilling the coffee.
I think it is based on the idea that the victim can never be given back what was taken from them, even if it was time spent suffering or in pain. Thus, we give them the best thing we can think of to improve their quality of life, money. And yes, multimillion dollar settlements are definitely more of a "punish the bad guy" idea than a true help to the victim. I'm not entirely against that, although I think that since such settlements are intended as punishment, they need to be scaled as to what constitutes an adequate punishment to the defendent, rather than how badly the victim was hurt. McDonald's could pay a huge settlement and never miss it, so a large settlement was necessary. ((Keep in mind that the woman originally tried to settle for medical costs only)).
But did it punish McDonalds? Or did it simply cause them to put "caution contents may be hot" on the side of their coffee cups?
Personal responsibility. It seems to be lacking of late.

As for your last question first: she didn't originally want to sue them and get punative damages/pain & suffering, she only wanted them to pay her medical bills. So your last paragraph is superfluous.
The last paragraph isnt superfluous. It was directed at the general "I slipped so now it's payday" mentality that seems to be getting more prevalent.
I use care when drinking beverages too, especially hot ones, but I have spilled freshly brewed coffee in my lap at home. Like I said, or tried to imply, over a person's lifetime, such a thing will all but inevitably happen at least once.
When you spill coffee at home, who's fault is it? Say you spill coffee at home on a toddler who just happens to be running underfoot. He get's 2nd or 3rd degree burns from the coffee. Is it the coffee pot's manufactures fault that the toddler got burned?
But here's the rub: 140-150F coffee that I make at home does not cause third degree burns. It just doesn't - it's an anatomical FACT. And like I asked: what if it had been 270F? What if it had done fifth degree burns? Would she still be just a whiney old clutz who owned all the fault of her injury?

And to repeat: all she had asked for was medical bills.
I hate being a nit picker, but it's a compulsion of mine. There are no higher degrees of burns than third. This, however, in no ways disproves or can be used against your case.

No, it's not an anatomical fact. It's an anatomical fact that people's skin are different. Some have fewer layers of skin, leaving them more suseptable to damage from heat or cold extremes, some have more layers leaving them less suseptable to said damage.

I hate being a nit picker, but it's a compulsion of mine. There are no higher degrees of burns than third. This, however, in no ways disproves or can be used against your case.


Actually that is not true.

A forth degree burn is when the stuff that was beneath the skin is destroyed(ie: mucles, tendons, ligaments and bones).

http://www.burnsurvivorsttw.org/burns/degree.html

Actually that is not true.

A forth degree burn is when the stuff that was beneath the skin is destroyed(ie: mucles, tendons, ligaments and bones).

http://www.burnsurvivorsttw.org/burns/degree.html
It seems that there is some disagreement on the subject. Here's what I've found so far:
For 3 degrees
http://www.fondtomafound.org/english/faqs.htm
http://burncenterfoundation.org/burn_info.htm
http://www.parents.org.uk/index.html?health_burning-up.htm&2

For 4 degrees
http://medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZINYLU25D&sub_cat=104
http://www.medbc.com/annals/review/vol_14/num_4/text/vol14n4p163.asp

I noticed that the sites that say there are 3 degrees of burn include damage to tissue below the dermis is included in 3rd degree burns.

Can't find any mention to 5th degree burns anywhere. ;)

No I'm male, so maybe you actually could conceive of what's in my mind... after all, I have a penis, and you seem to do your thinking with yours.

edit: I just saw your retraction, so... nah... the above may be mean but it's just so perfect! :cool:

Oh and like you never think with yours!

That's like a guy saying he never *censored*

:p

Don't worry about being mean. As an ex-mod and a parent, you get thick skinned! ;)

Look, the problem with the coffee lady was this:

If the coffee was at a reletivly NORMAL temperature, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. There was a lawsuit NOT because it was spilled on her, but because of how hot it was when it was spilled on her.


Hot enough to scald her mouth had she decided to drink it immidiatly after getting it.


And the reason there was a big problem with this, was because McDonalds would NOT change it. There had been what-over 700 other complaints filed? And nothing was done.


Now, a bit of my anti-trust sentiments may leak out here, but if you were on the jury, and you heard that she was just some "crazy lady who spilled coffee on herself," what would you think?

I personally think McDonalds had SOME role in spreading that around for charecter assassination. Most jury members have a large biast right from the start of a case depending on who's on trial, and a lot of times evidence is simply ignored.

Oh and like you never think with yours!

That's like a guy saying he never *censored*

:p

Don't worry about being mean. As an ex-mod and a parent, you get thick skinned! ;)

:eek:

I will have you know that I never have felched ...but I have flagellated and nipularly masticated a few times.

:D

TOR:

Cudos to TBF for the fourth degree burns correction... we were both wrong.

If I spill home-brewed coffee on my kid, it's gonna give him second degree burns, not third. But yeah, if she'd been smart enough to have a few more fat rolls, she might have soaked the damage. :rolleyes: All her fault!

And to spill something is the spillers fault, but to fill a cup with a hazardous substance (190F is hazardous, 150F is not) is the filler's fault. You avoided a question of mine by mispointing out my error about fifth degree burns, but will you answer it now? If someone, a vendor say, handed you a cup of coffee, and it was 270F, and your kid bumped you and it spilled all over him and melted him down to the bone, is it all your fault? All his? All your kid's? How about it?

The fact is, 190F is hazardous, and it was not Stella that got it that hot, nor decided that it must be that hot.

TOR:

Cudos to TBF for the fourth degree burns correction... we were both wrong.

If I spill home-brewed coffee on my kid, it's gonna give him second degree burns, not third. But yeah, if she'd been smart enough to have a few more fat rolls, she might have soaked the damage. :rolleyes: All her fault!

And to spill something is the spillers fault, but to fill a cup with a hazardous substance (190F is hazardous, 150F is not) is the filler's fault. You avoided a question of mine by mispointing out my error about fifth degree burns, but will you answer it now? If someone, a vendor say, handed you a cup of coffee, and it was 270F, and your kid bumped you and it spilled all over him and melted him down to the bone, is it all your fault? All his? All your kid's? How about it?

The fact is, 190F is hazardous, and it was not Stella that got it that hot, nor decided that it must be that hot.

dude, you're talking to conservatives. Things like mutual responsibility, shades of gray, and nuance of meaning make them uneasy. Don't you have a one-liner or something you could use?

Umm, liquid water can only get so hot. Sugar water more so. Third degree burns seem... excessive.

Umm, liquid water can only get so hot. Sugar water more so. Third degree burns seem... excessive.

because of the high specific density of water and it's conductivity, it can cause much worse burns than one would think.

TOR:

Cudos to TBF for the fourth degree burns correction... we were both wrong.

If I spill home-brewed coffee on my kid, it's gonna give him second degree burns, not third. But yeah, if she'd been smart enough to have a few more fat rolls, she might have soaked the damage. :rolleyes: All her fault!

And to spill something is the spillers fault, but to fill a cup with a hazardous substance (190F is hazardous, 150F is not) is the filler's fault. You avoided a question of mine by mispointing out my error about fifth degree burns, but will you answer it now? If someone, a vendor say, handed you a cup of coffee, and it was 270F, and your kid bumped you and it spilled all over him and melted him down to the bone, is it all your fault? All his? All your kid's? How about it?

The fact is, 190F is hazardous, and it was not Stella that got it that hot, nor decided that it must be that hot.
The fact is that 150F can be hazardous too. The fault lies in her careless handling of what could have been hazardous. She chose to not take ample precautions.

I've never said McDonalds didn't share any of the blame... my only contention is that the woman was much more to blame than 20%. If she had taken the precautions to not spill it, at least not on her, there never would have been a lawsuit either. Cup holders, putting the cup on the dashboard whatever. Her negligent decision to place hot liquid between her legs led to her getting damaged.
To argue otherwise is to argue against personal responsibility.

dude, you're talking to conservatives. Things like mutual responsibility, shades of gray, and nuance of meaning make them uneasy. Don't you have a one-liner or something you could use?
And Im talking to liberals. Things like personal responsibility, right and wrong make them uneasy.

Umm, liquid water can only get so hot. Sugar water more so. Third degree burns seem... excessive.
Distilled water can reach 212F.
According to this website http://www.bcparent.com/articles/holiday_2003/hot_water_burns.html 140 is enough to cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.

That's my contention... she wasn't in her right mind to open up the coffee until it had cooled. Coffee is hot, it burns. Whether 140 or 190 it's still hot. Any person in their right mind would accept this fact and take all due precautions not to allow it to contact their skins. Are you saying that since it's hot and it'll burn and hurt a little, she should then be allowed to be careless?

Normal people put their cream and sugar in their coffee and drink it while it's still hot (but not scalding), so saying that she wasn't in her right mind to open it and try to put her cream and sugar in is ludicrous. Opening it right away is the normal use for coffee.
The problem with McDonald's was that, unlike any other restaraunt or home coffee pot, the coffee was beyond scalding. You can say the temperature doesn't matter all you want, but it does. You want hot water in your shower, right? But suppose the water immediately came out so hot that it would cause third degree burns - would that be ok?

Unfortunately peoples skin are different. Some wouldn't have recieved 3rd degree burns. Some would receive 3rd degree burns at lower temperatures. It does not preclude her from exorcising due dilligence to prevent spilling the coffee.

The doctor that testified said that on most people, that temperature would cause third degree burns within seconds. And don't try and act like she spilled the coffee on purpose. I was exercising due diligence the last time I spilled something - it just happens sometimes.

But did it punish McDonalds? Or did it simply cause them to put "caution contents may be hot" on the side of their coffee cups?
Personal responsibility. It seems to be lacking of late.

Actually, I believe they stopped keeping their coffee so hot - which was what they should have done after the first several hundred complaints and payoffs.

You can yell about personal responsibility all you want - and I will agree with you that it is important. But corporations also must take responsibility for what they do as well.

[Dempublicents #206]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
That's my contention... she wasn't in her right mind to open up the coffee until it had cooled. Coffee is hot, it burns. Whether 140 or 190 it's still hot. Any person in their right mind would accept this fact and take all due precautions not to allow it to contact their skins. Are you saying that since it's hot and it'll burn and hurt a little, she should then be allowed to be careless?

Normal people put their cream and sugar in their coffee and drink it while it's still hot (but not scalding), so saying that she wasn't in her right mind to open it and try to put her cream and sugar in is ludicrous. Opening it right away is the normal use for coffee.
The problem with McDonald's was that, unlike any other restaraunt or home coffee pot, the coffee was beyond scalding. You can say the temperature doesn't matter all you want, but it does. You want hot water in your shower, right? But suppose the water immediately came out so hot that it would cause third degree burns - would that be ok?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
Unfortunately peoples skin are different. Some wouldn't have recieved 3rd degree burns. Some would receive 3rd degree burns at lower temperatures. It does not preclude her from exorcising due dilligence to prevent spilling the coffee.

The doctor that testified said that on most people, that temperature would cause third degree burns within seconds. And don't try and act like she spilled the coffee on purpose. I was exercising due diligence the last time I spilled something - it just happens sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
But did it punish McDonalds? Or did it simply cause them to put "caution contents may be hot" on the side of their coffee cups?
Personal responsibility. It seems to be lacking of late.

Actually, I believe they stopped keeping their coffee so hot - which was what they should have done after the first several hundred complaints and payoffs.

You can yell about personal responsibility all you want - and I will agree with you that it is important. But corporations also must take responsibility for what they do as well.

And this illustrates "Liberal" thinking better than most examples I've seen in quite some time.

Degeneration into hyper-legalism about the temperature of fast food coffee.

And done so with all seriousness...!

Excellent..! :D

And this illustrates "Liberal" thinking better than most examples I've seen in quite some time.

Degeneration into hyper-legalism about the temperature of fast food coffee.

And done so with all seriousness...!

Excellent..! :D

Yes, clearly all those arguing about coffee are "liberal", and litigation is an exclusively "liberal" activity.

Yes, clearly all those arguing about coffee are "liberal", and litigation is an exclusively "liberal" activity.

No, only litigating against a corporation, one of the true Children of Liberty, is liberal. Unless you are one, and bigger. You can be a corporation, and sue a writer/comerdian for spoofing you - that certainly doesn't make you liberal.

No, only litigating against a corporation, one of the true Children of Liberty, is liberal. Unless you are one, and bigger. You can be a corporation, and sue a writer/comerdian for spoofing you - that certainly doesn't make you liberal.
Dru, I must say I like your sarcasm.

The fact is that 150F can be hazardous too. The fault lies in her careless handling of what could have been hazardous. She chose to not take ample precautions.

I've never said McDonalds didn't share any of the blame... my only contention is that the woman was much more to blame than 20%. If she had taken the precautions to not spill it, at least not on her, there never would have been a lawsuit either. Cup holders, putting the cup on the dashboard whatever. Her negligent decision to place hot liquid between her legs led to her getting damaged.
To argue otherwise is to argue against personal responsibility.

Well maybe consider my meaning a little more: Virtually nobody takes precautions with their coffee that are sufficiently ample to avoid spilling it on themselves at least once in their lives, if not many more times. These common accidents, common although you may be immune to them, rarely cause this kind of damage. Why? Because despite the preference of McDonalds' executives and despite the recommendations of the Coffee Advisory Board, the vast majority of coffee is served at 140-150F.

My car does not come with a cup holder or a horizontal dashboard area. She could have bought a cup holder? She was not in her own car.

Not spilling is not a precaution: not spilling is the successful result of precautions. Not spilling will never be a perfectly successful goal; however, if one knows that one is handling a hazardous material, one is more likely to maintain the utmost caution, despite coffee drinking, and mixing, being every-day activities.

Do corporate decision-makers not have personal responsibility? Or, perhaps, personal responsibility is the only form of responsibility, and to expect corporate responsibility is to ask for too much? And do situations of mutual responsibility even exist at all, or is it 100% for either one or the other?

edit: No nevermind, don't answer that, as I realize/recall now that you do not put 100% on Stella. Instead, please answer: what percentage of the fault would you put on her?[/edit]

And please answer my previous question: if a server handed you a cup of 270F coffee, and your kid bumped you and as a result got his skin and muscles and organs melted down until bone was showing, whose fault would it be? Yours? His? The server's?

Please answer, unless you fear having to answer the obvious follow-up.

Dru, I must say I like your sarcasm.

:D

Back atchya: since I am not a UN member, I consider you our regional leader. ;)

[ We really need to keep an eye on Gregor, btw ]

Well maybe consider my meaning a little more: Virtually nobody takes precautions with their coffee that are sufficiently ample to avoid spilling it on themselves at least once in their lives, if not many more times. These common accidents, common although you may be immune to them, rarely cause this kind of damage. Why? Because despite the preference of McDonalds' executives and despite the recommendations of the Coffee Advisory Board, the vast majority of coffee is served at 140-150F.

My car does not come with a cup holder or a horizontal dashboard area. She could have bought a cup holder? She was not in her own car.

Not spilling is not a precaution: not spilling is the successful result of precautions. Not spilling will never be a perfectly successful goal; however, if one knows that one is handling a hazardous material, one is more likely to maintain the utmost caution, despite coffee drinking, and mixing, being every-day activities.

Do corporate decision-makers not have personal responsibility? Or, perhaps, personal responsibility is the only form of responsibility, and to expect corporate responsibility is to ask for too much? And do situations of mutual responsibility even exist at all, or is it 100% for either one or the other?

edit: no nevermind, don't answer that, as I realize/recall now that you do not put 100% on Stella. instead, please answer: what percentage of the fault would you put on her?[/edit]

And please answer my previous question: if a server handed you a cup of 270F coffee, and your kid bumped you and as a result got his skin and muscles and organs melted down until bone was showing, whose fault would it be? Yours? His? The server's?

Please answer, unless you fear having to answer the obvious follow-up.
I can't answer that... it hasn't happened to me yet.
I can answer with what has actually happened to me and my son. My son, when 4 years old got a hold of a "child proof" lighter that my wife and I kept on the top shelf of a linen closet, approx 8 feet up. At the time we had no idea that he was able to climb the shelves, he had never done so prior that we were aware of.
He started the bed on fire from underneath which eventually lead to the apartment catching on fire. This fire caused approx $45,000 worth of damage. Me and my guests at the time tried to fight the fire, including trying to get a hold of the fire extinguisher right outside our apartment. Of course the fire extinguisher was behind plexiglass because vandals had kept breaking the glass that was originally there. By the time we got the extinguisher out, the room had already filled up with smoke and we were unable to get close enough to do any good.
This all had a very troubling affect on my son. For days afterwards the only words he could say was "I killed our home, I killed our home". He was unable to say anything else. He still has to see a psychiatrist to this day, 5 years later.
Whose fault was all this? The manufacturer of the lighter because it wasn't child proof enough? The apartment complex's fault for tightening the enclosure of the fire extinguisher? Did I sue anyone?
No, infact I was sued by the insurance company for the entire $45,000 dollar repair bill. I was able to settle for $12,000.
It was my fault because I failed to supervise my child enough, and I endangered his life. Nobody elses fault but mine.

I can't answer that... it hasn't happened to me yet.
I can answer with what has actually happened to me and my son. My son, when 4 years old got a hold of a "child proof" lighter that my wife and I kept on the top shelf of a linen closet, approx 8 feet up. At the time we had no idea that he was able to climb the shelves, he had never done so prior that we were aware of.
He started the bed on fire from underneath which eventually lead to the apartment catching on fire. This fire caused approx $45,000 worth of damage. Me and my guests at the time tried to fight the fire, including trying to get a hold of the fire extinguisher right outside our apartment. Of course the fire extinguisher was behind plexiglass because vandals had kept breaking the glass that was originally there. By the time we got the extinguisher out, the room had already filled up with smoke and we were unable to get close enough to do any good.
This all had a very troubling affect on my son. For days afterwards the only words he could say was "I killed our home, I killed our home". He was unable to say anything else. He still has to see a psychiatrist to this day, 5 years later.
Whose fault was all this? The manufacturer of the lighter because it wasn't child proof enough? The apartment complex's fault for tightening the enclosure of the fire extinguisher? Did I sue anyone?
No, infact I was sued by the insurance company for the entire $45,000 dollar repair bill. I was able to settle for $12,000.
It was my fault because I failed to supervise my child enough, and I endangered his life. Nobody elses fault but mine.

No it wasn't your fault at all, but you seem to have allowed yourself to be a victim by assuming the fault, and got victimized again by your insurence company. Most tragic: your overdeveloped sense of personal responsibility let them victimize you and you still don't realize it.

Child-proof lighter on the top shelf? Some fault of yours for owning a lighter and letting it leave your person. Ever. No company's fault, as child-proofing can never be genius-child-proof.

Safety equipment inaccessable? Apartment management's fault. I would say, 90% to your 10%. But you didn't sue... perhaps it would have felt like a betrayal of your ideals. Your problem, and not one that justifies restricting the rights of other victims to persue civil redress. You can believe me, insurence companies will always use their legal options to try to get out of paying what they owe you, and it may be that your unwillingness to assign the rightful blame that was theirs to your apartment's managers signalled them that you were easy prey.

[Independent Homesteads #208]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And this illustrates "Liberal" thinking better than most examples I've seen in quite some time.

Degeneration into hyper-legalism about the temperature of fast food coffee.

And done so with all seriousness...!

Excellent..!


Yes, clearly all those arguing about coffee are "liberal", and litigation is an exclusively "liberal" activity.

I had suspected that..! The fine points of coffee are fascinating, and the fine points of "coffee temperature as it relates to the American legal system" are even more fascinating.

Thank you for confirming my niggling suspicion that liberals are as astute as I'd always considered them.

America needs more gibbering. It keeps the aliens from attacking, and helps the vast "gray noise" industry in their very important efforts to supply the world with much needed distraction and "psycho/mental prophylactics".

[Independent Homesteads #208]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And this illustrates "Liberal" thinking better than most examples I've seen in quite some time.

Degeneration into hyper-legalism about the temperature of fast food coffee.

And done so with all seriousness...!

Excellent..!


Yes, clearly all those arguing about coffee are "liberal", and litigation is an exclusively "liberal" activity.

I had suspected that..! The fine points of coffee are fascinating, and the fine points of "coffee temperature as it relates to the American legal system" are even more fascinating.

Thank you for confirming my niggling suspicion that liberals are as astute as I'd always considered them.

America needs more gibbering. It keeps the aliens from attacking, and helps the vast "gray noise" industry in their very important efforts to supply the world with much needed distraction and "psycho/mental prophylactics".

:rolleyes:

Umm, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the fire was...

The Kids fault...even if he was four years old...

Now some may say that the concept that "playing with lighters" was a perfectly logical and allowed thing to do...

However, the fact that he then started to say "I killed our home..." does indicate some conceptual grasp, like "Play with lighter bad..." (and the fact that he lit the bottom of the mattress on fire...which sounds as if he were hidding while playing with his illegal toy)

Also, I am surprised that the fire inspector didn't fine the apartment complex and the insurance company refused to pay them for their negligence in maintaining proper fire suppresion equipment. (I wouldn't be surprised if they got 10,000 for repairs...)

Now watch my cruxifiction for laying the blame on a fire on a four year old...

No it wasn't your fault at all, but you seem to have allowed yourself to be a victim by assuming the fault, and got victimized again by your insurence company. Most tragic: your overdeveloped sense of personal responsibility let them victimize you and you still don't realize it.

Child-proof lighter on the top shelf? Some fault of yours for owning a lighter and letting it leave your person. Ever. No company's fault, as child-proofing can never be genius-child-proof.

Safety equipment inaccessable? Apartment management's fault. I would say, 90% to your 10%. But you didn't sue... perhaps it would have felt like a betrayal of your ideals. Your problem, and not one that justifies restricting the rights of other victims to persue civil redress. You can believe me, insurence companies will always use their legal options to try to get out of paying what they owe you, and it may be that your unwillingness to assign the rightful blame that was theirs to your apartment's managers signalled them that you were easy prey.


Your response, while valid, simply serves to highlight the two differant ways of thought. I commend TheOneRule while you feel he was taken advantage of. He isnt blaming everyone he can find for things that go wrong in his life. While the "child proofing" of the lighter could have been better and the extinguisher could have been more accessable, the fire would not have happened if TheOneRule had done somethings differantly. Like he says, he could have supervised his child a little better, or educated him about lighters(4 is old enough I think), or kept his own fire extinguisher, or kept the lighter in a safer location. I bet he keeps his own fire extinguisher now.

Yes, the coffee was hotter than the norm, but the lady knew it was HOT coffee even if she didnt know how hot. It becomes someone else fault when they do something you have no control over(such as if a mcdonalds employee spilled the coffee on her). If you have control over the situation(within reason) then the fault should lie with you.

Would tha still apply even if the coffee had been, say, 270F?

Yes the fire was not started by the apartment maganers, but there are laws regarding placement of and access to fire extinguishers. If there had been no fire extinguishers, he might have bought his own, but he depended on the apartment managers' provision of one. Is it "noble" of him to take the blame for their failures? Think so all you like, I've got a Pinto to sell you if you're interested.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm

This is a really good website. It offers very intelligent arguments for liberalism. The section on Austrian economics especially impressed me, although I warn that its beginning is the worst, where it quotes some philosophers wrongly. I do disagree with the arguments for affirmative action on there, however, and the philosophical parts in favour of democracy are spurious, as well.

Lots of people in Europe get irritated by the way America uses the word "liberal", but I like it. If you ask me what I am in terms of British politics, I don't know what to say. If you ask me in terms of American politics, I'm a "liberal" - except on affirmative action.

I can't answer that... it hasn't happened to me yet.
I can answer with what has actually happened to me and my son. My son, when 4 years old got a hold of a "child proof" lighter that my wife and I kept on the top shelf of a linen closet, approx 8 feet up. At the time we had no idea that he was able to climb the shelves, he had never done so prior that we were aware of.
He started the bed on fire from underneath which eventually lead to the apartment catching on fire. This fire caused approx $45,000 worth of damage. Me and my guests at the time tried to fight the fire, including trying to get a hold of the fire extinguisher right outside our apartment. Of course the fire extinguisher was behind plexiglass because vandals had kept breaking the glass that was originally there. By the time we got the extinguisher out, the room had already filled up with smoke and we were unable to get close enough to do any good.
This all had a very troubling affect on my son. For days afterwards the only words he could say was "I killed our home, I killed our home". He was unable to say anything else. He still has to see a psychiatrist to this day, 5 years later.
Whose fault was all this? The manufacturer of the lighter because it wasn't child proof enough? The apartment complex's fault for tightening the enclosure of the fire extinguisher? Did I sue anyone?
No, infact I was sued by the insurance company for the entire $45,000 dollar repair bill. I was able to settle for $12,000.
It was my fault because I failed to supervise my child enough, and I endangered his life. Nobody elses fault but mine.

Not really a valid example. The purpose of lighters is to produce fire. All lighters produce fire and normal use means that you produce fire. If the lighter, instead of producing fire, had exploded in your child's hand, you would have a reason to sue - since exploding is not the purpose of a lighter.

The purpose of coffee is to be a drink. If a drink is so hot that it causes third degree burns, it cannot be a drink. Thus, the coffee was not safe for normal use.